Re: CFO: Why ./configure?

From: André Pönitz (poenitz_at_gmx.net)
Date: 09/16/03 

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:44:35 +0000 (UTC)

VBDis <vbdis@aol.com> wrote:
> Im Artikel <bjs32p$iuq$2@mamenchi.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, Thomas Richter
> <thor@cleopatra.math.tu-berlin.de> schreibt:
>
>>> That's why I try to find ways to simplify that build process, so
>>> that the authors of the packages do not have to bother with the
>>> problems of other platforms at all.
>>
>>Then you would have to have a tool that, by itself, runs on the
>>majority of systems you need to build software for. As far as autoconf
>>is concerned, this is correct. A "sh" exists on most systems. Though
>>not on all systems I want to support.
>
> I fully agree. I want a single tool, which runs on every system. What
> I don't want is a bunch of tools, which are used by that single
> tool, and which must be available and working as well, on every
> system :-(

A monolithic tool 'knowing all' is unflexible and will work only for the
things it was designed for. Any change in the world will break the tool,
given that it worked at all at some time.

This approach is only feasible in a small, highly controlled world where
there is not much choice generally.

But such a tool is not necessary at all. All that's needed is a simple
entry point to the complex world, and ./configure can provide this.
>From a user's POV, installing some piece of software is using the

  './configure && make && make install'

mantra. No system knowledge required in the common case.

Andre'