🚀 go-pugleaf

donn@carson.u.washington.edu (Donn Cave) writes:

>I see in the GNUS bulletin that there's thought of unifying "configure".
>Anyone else have any favorites among the various GNU configures?

>My personal favorite is the one that comes with fileutils, et al.  It works,
>it's fairly fast and I haven't generally found it to require any fiddling at
>all.

I was very impressed with the RCS configuration suite. It worked well
on some of the more bizzare machine I've worked with and requires no
interaction. Perl scores pretty well in my book also, since it tells
you what it's doing and lets you correct it if it makes mistakes.

>Another that ranks high in my esteem is the one that comes with groff.  It's
>called "Makefile".

I must disagree here. I found groff installation simply intolerable. I
eventually just gave up hope of building any of the groff packages. It
assumed far too many things about my local setup, such as: having c++,
making sure it was a special, _compatible_ version, or that I could
patch the code for gcc. It was hunting for include files I have never
seen (osfcn.h?).  C++ code and C code had the same file suffix, which
confuses gcc 2.1.

I found it revealing that the author noted in the docs that people were
frequently requesting binary verions of the utilities. After trying to
build them, I understood why.

Still lacking pic - 

-- 
Charlie Reiman - creiman@ncsa.uiuc.edu
"People are going to take to voice input like lemmings to the sea."
					 -Tony Bove (MacWeek V.6 N.13)