>> Agreed wholeheartedly. Thing is, It's autoconf that needs careful >> redesign: > > I don't see any need for autoconf. As one wise person put it to me, > "things like configure and autoconf just mean you don't know how to > write portable code". > Again, agreed, but reality out there suggests many others are still believers, no matter how misguided. We were discussing making available Open Source ports...
> I still like to point people at plan 9 ports as an example of a > complex system that gets by without this *conf* nonsense. It falls over just enough to be attacked. Otherwise, p9p source would have been ported back to Plan 9 in its entirety. It's a shame, really, and with some work it could be fixed, but some of that work is design work. ++L PS: I realise that I'm proposing two nearly orthogonal objectives, sorry that I didn't clarify that sooner.
