> I would prefer avoiding autoconf completely for this unless there is a > very compelling reason to do otherwise. I see no need for it at all. > It's one thing to have a familiar shell scripts called "configure", > and another to use autoconf.
Why not use tools (on the developer side) that support the configuration management that sage needs? Autoconf is not needed for an end-user! >>> (3) ./configure --prefix=/a/path/somewhere >>> would create an "install target" file somewhere, which would be >>> recorded. This would in no way impact the current 'make' procedure. >> Sounds logical >> >>> (4) "make" would work 100% as it does now. >> Sounds logical >> >>> (5) "make install" would do nothing unless the user did step (3) >>> above, in which case it would install sage in that location. >> Agreed. Not agreed. The standard is that "make install" installs the program in the directory given by $prefix. That variable is by default set to /usr/local if you don't change it with the --prefix option at configure time. If you want "make install" to do nothing if there was no --prefix option then that might be what Sage wants, but is not standard. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
