On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2001 03:32 am, Brent Dax wrote:
> > I have no idea how many times this has been suggested. :^)
> Dependency-ish rules, a la make. Maybe even tied into the actual build
> itself. I don't think getting them to run in the right order is a problem.
> I think *writing* them so that they can be run in the right order is.
> <anecdote mode="boring">
> But all I really needed was Perl, so I thought I'd give it a gander. After
> all the lifeless GNU-ish configs, the Configure seemed thorough,
> informative, and, well, entertaining - only partly due to the seemingly
> random, haphazardous order it would do things in.
Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in
order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Configure is
indeed built in just the way you suggest.
Dependency order isn't quite enough, alas, but it's very close. There are
currently some circular dependencies (mostly in the 64-bit area) that have
proven particularly knotty.
> random, haphazardous order it would do things in. (But in all fairness to
> the GNU maintainers, Perl didn't fair much better. It failed to build
> because of preprocessor token concatenation, it looked like, of which
> Configure determined it was "Ah, the good ol' days.")
Hmm. What version of perl? 5.005 and later require ANSI C, which it
sounds like you didn't have. (Very off-topic at this point, so private
reply is just fine.)
> </anecdote>
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Physics
Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
