🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1995May1.005528.15822@news.wrc.xerox.com> leisner@gemini.scn.de (Marty Leisner 25733) writes:
   But after years of configuring software, I find the
   autoconfig system far superior to a configuration system
   where you have to interactively answer questions to a script...

How does an autoconfig system handle setting things up that a user must
supply, like installation location, extra features to be compiled in, etc?
BTW: Perl's metaconfig can "simulate" an autoconfig type of installation
with the -des options (d=default answers, e=don't question at the end,
s=run silently).

   I find the editing makefile approach (with appropriate documentation)
   preferably to interacting with scripts...

Ex-squeeze me?  You prefer having to hack a makefile over being able to
answer a few simple questions?  You are one strange bird, my friend.  I've
hacked far too many makefile and finally given up in disgust over the
shitty programming practices of the authors to want to wish that on anyone
else.  Larry (et.al) have done a wonderful job of making metaconfig easy
for anyone to use, all the way from simple newbie on up to
kernel-hacking-guru-wizard.

   I still haven't got Perl 5 to build on my sparc (I spent
   a few hours trying) ...gawk is a 
   breeze...

You must have a strange setup on your sparc (to go along with you being a
strang bird?  ;-).  Under all of the following OSes, I've been able to use
"Configure -des; make; make test", go away for lunch and come back and have
a nice "100% tests passed" message on my screen:

Solaris 2.4
SunOS 4.1.3
IRIX 5.2
HP/UX 9.00.05

Linux I've had problems with, but only since trying to move to 5.001. 5.000
compiled without a problem.

Steve
--
Stephen P Potter		spp@vx.com		Varimetrix Corporation
2350 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 4			    Palm Bay, FL 32905
(407) 676-3222 						  CAD/CAM/CAE/Software