|From:||The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Configure problem, redux (was Re: TCL installation troubles)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Namely: I think we have gotten much too willing to use configure to
> >> rewrite subsidiary files all over the distribution, rather than ensuring
> >> that the configuration decisions are expressed in a central place.
> > I disagree here. If people want to twiddle, they can after configure.
> > People would much rather spell params to configure, rather than to edit
> > Makefiles.
> I agree with you, up to a point. What happens if configure makes the
> wrong choice for a given system? For a person not familiar with
> autoconf (which is most people) fixing its output is likely to be easier
> than trying to fix the script.
Huh? Can you give an example of a Makefile that configure
modifies that could pose a problem?
Off the top of my head, the only stuff that configure modifies is
stuff like backend/port/Makefile, to add in OS-missing functions...for the
most part, that should be *all* that configure modifies...and, ya, we
could move that into Makefile.global...
|Next Message||The Hermit Hacker||1998-10-28 02:01:08||RE: [HACKERS] Configure problem, redux (was Re: TCL installation troubles)|
|Previous Message||The Hermit Hacker||1998-10-28 01:57:22||Re: [HACKERS] Configure problem, redux (was Re: TCL installation troubles)|