[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf

From: Alexandre Oliva
Subject: Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf
Date: 10 Apr 2001 18:03:24 -0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)

On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:

>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <address@hidden> writes:
Russ> Is there any way that the driver scripts could be generated
Russ> using M4 so that all the portability junk can be hidden, just
Russ> like autoconf lets the end user do for the configure script?

> That's correct, and that's what Autom4ke is for.  That's why


> m4sugar.m4 and m4sh.m4 were created.  But again, Autoconf is
> addressing portability issues on the user side, not on the maintainer
> side.

Why not address them on the maintainer side too?  Why not have our own
dog food? :-)

AC_PLAIN_SCRIPT (or however it's spelled these days :-) rules!

Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden,}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden,}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]