Didier Verna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Tromey wrote: >> I'm curious to know what is so complex about it. >> Is it something intrinsic to XEmacs? >> Or a quirk of evolution? >> Or something else? > It's mainly because autoconf has been in use in XEmacs for a long time, > and the level of customization we want|like|need is|was not available > without understanding and hacking autoconf's internals. This is not > specific to XEmacs as we all know. However, XEmacs goes rather deep in > that matter ... It also does things like use cpp to pre-process Makefiles, probably because it dates from before automake. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harm... Martin Buchholz
- Re: config.cache considered harm... Pavel Roskin
- Re: config.cache considered harm... Akim Demaille
- Re: config.cache considered harmful Martin Buchholz
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Didier Verna
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Russ Allbery
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Tom Tromey
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Didier Verna
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Russ Allbery
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Martin Buchholz
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf is broken in various ways Martin Buchholz