Karel Kulhavy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >but maybe there is some URL explaining this topic.
> > No, because you should have at least basic Un*x knowledge.
>
> I have a basic Unix knowledge. Do you think that someone who wrote 25% of a
> graphical web browser that runs on the following platforms:
> Linux, BSD, UNIX in general, OS/2, Cygwin under Windows, AtheOS, BeOS,
> FreeMint, X Window System (UN*X, Cygwin), SVGAlib, Linux Framebuffer, OS/2
> PMShell, AtheOS GUI, doesn't have a basic Unix knowledge?
Writing software does not imply having basic unix knowledge. Asking
the questions you keep asking does imply lacking basic unix knowledge.
> This answer is an equivalent to "we didn't put labels on the buttons on TV
> remote control because this information can be obtained from the user's
> manual".
No, its equivalent to "it says I need to push the power button on the
remote, but doesn't include a pointer to a website explaining how to
push buttons".
> I don't understand what's the point in refusing to do this - this looks like
> some kind of OpenBSD script and it should be easy to change the text it
> prints,
> shouldn't? I guess the work will be minimal and the benefit will be obvious.
The benefit is only obvious to you. Everyone else who is capable of using
autoconf seems to also be capable of setting a simple environment variable.
It really is as easy as it seems. My first time running autoconf looked
alot like this:
$ autoconf
Provide an AUTOCONF_VERSION environment variable, please
$ autoconf <- lets try out that autocomplete feature
autoconf autoconf-2.52 autoconf-2.57
autoconf-2.13 autoconf-2.54 autoconf-2.59
$ autoconf
$ export AUTOCONF_VERSION=2.59
This can only be described using phrases like "incredibly obvious" or
"painfully obvious".
Adam
