[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoconf and cl.exe
From: |
Braden McDaniel |
Subject: |
Re: autoconf and cl.exe |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:51:31 -0500 |
"Paul Eggert" <address@hidden> wrote in message
news:address@hidden
> "Braden McDaniel" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > The Coin <http://coin3d.org> folks have solved this by using a wrapper
that
> > translates the POSIX arguments to cl-ese. I'm wondering (1) if such a
thing
> > as this would be considered a useful addition to autoconf itself;
>
> Yes. However, we'd need help to maintain it. I don't use cl or
> Windows, for example.
>
> > and (2), if so, what kind of requirements it would need to meet
> > (i.e., presumably it ought to be written in sh).
>
> That would normally be one requirement. However, if cl in practice is
> always run on a platform that uses some other shell, it'd be OK to use
> that shell. I.e., if everybody who uses cl uses command.exe (or
> whatever the other shell is), and if sh is not universally available,
> then you might as well use command.exe.
If sh is not available, presumably there would be substantial difficulty in
using autoconf/configure at all.
In practice, I think there are very few projects using cl with autoconf. But
I want to use autotools, and building with cl is a requirement for the
project I'm working on. So hopefully I can come up with a general solution
to the problem.
> A couple of other requirements:
>
> * The changes should be decoupled from the rest of Autoconf. We
> shouldn't have to have the equivalent of "#ifdef DOS" all over the
> place.
Of course; avoiding that kind of thing is very much the point of the
wrapper.
> * The author of the changes would need to sign the copyright over to
> the FSF.
I don't anticipate a problem.
I'm glad there's interest.
--
Braden McDaniel <address@hidden>
Software Engineer, Object Sciences Corporation