[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Autoconf and apt

From: Allan Clark
Subject: Re: Autoconf and apt
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:22:48 -0400

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 17:14, Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden
> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> IMVHO any kind of repetition of knowledge encoded in rpm and apt
>> (or system vendor X package) databases is not tolerable, if it needs to
>> be hand-maintained in any way.  It's just too much data, getting out of
>> date, and too many distributions.
> I don't understand.  Wikipedia only knows about 242 Linux distributions.
>  What's the big deal?
> Of course there are at least five *BSD distributions, maybe five
> OpenSolaris distributions, Darwin, BeOS, AmigaOS, Plan 9, and Oberon. Maybe
> that is what you are worried about?
> It seems that the world would be a simpler place if the world could
> standardize on just one distribution such as the one called "Windows Vista".
>  Then we would not need Autoconf.

Heh.  Jokes aside, I figured there's a good chance that the same "project"
(ie{PROJECT} or http://{PROJECT}
provides the same deliverables cross-platform.  For example, the libz on
Solaris, Redhat, UNIX, and BeOS probably comes from project "libz", and so
"libz" or the URL to a libz-maintained translation (ie ):

AC_MSG_ERROR([Missing component libz probably provided by project or package zlib.])

(this message is maintained by the project that is dependent on, but
zlib maintains the freshmeat record or some

Can you see how *this* is static across UNIX, Linux, BeOS, and Solaris?

address@hidden "金鱼"
please, no proprietary attachments (

reply via email to

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