Re: CFO: Why ./configure?
From: VBDis (vbdis_at_aol.com)
Date: 09/15/03
- Next message: VBDis: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Previous message: VBDis: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- In reply to: André Pönitz: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Next in thread: André Pönitz: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Reply: André Pönitz: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 15 Sep 2003 02:55:19 GMT
Im Artikel <bjsakl$l6h$7@anderson.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_P=F6nitz?= <poenitz@gmx.net> schreibt:
>And when it comes to required features: Do you know all your libraries
>by heart? Do you know which features go together and which don't?
>Can you tell me at once what version of g++ support partial
>specialization of templates?
You seem to assume that the autotools will know all that? For every platform
and system? How that? How for new platforms, tools and libraries, and for every
specific installation?
When configure tests the capabilities of the target system, then these tests
can fail for several reasons. What if multiple instances of libraries exist
there, with possibly different properties? What about different versions of
installed tools, like compilers, which one will configure use during the tests?
Isn't it better to leave the answers to all questions to the target system,
which can provide the answers in a more appropriate way than any script can,
which was written without that detailed knowledge about a specific target
system?
DoDi
- Next message: VBDis: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Previous message: VBDis: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- In reply to: André Pönitz: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Next in thread: André Pönitz: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Reply: André Pönitz: "Re: CFO: Why ./configure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|