> I'm not saying the top level configure script needs to be created by > autoconf, though it would look more 'normal' if it was, as 95% of > 'configure' scripts are created using autoconf.
As usual, autoconf/automake are only required on the developer side. Programs are usually distributed with configure.ac and (the generated) configure as well as with Makefile.am and the (generated) Makefile.in. For the enduser there is no need for autoconf. And for developers it's only needed if they change configure.ac (autoconf) or Makefile.am (automake). In a distribution are *no* Makefile's only the templates (Makefile.in). So there would be no question on whether to start configure or make. If I am not totally wrong, then sage already contains other programs that are build in the standard configure&&make&&make install way. Nobody has complained so far. Right? Ralf --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
