🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992May11.203911.21688@u.washington.edu> 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?

The features I would like to see in the ideal GNU configure are these:

(1)  It should be easy to use when compiling for an already supported system.
     There is a slight problem with the fileutils, etc., in that they are
     awkward when, for example, include files are not in the expected
     places, or when the C compiler requires special arguments to work
     properly.  I have had a lot of trouble when compiling for systems whose
     libraries contain known bugs, which I can avoid, but which the configures
     cannot.  The gdb/binutils style is not bad here.  The patch/perl
     style is quite good.

(2)  It should be adaptible for cross-compilation.  The fileutils, etc.,
     configures are hopeless at this.  The gdb/binutils style are of course
     designed for this.  The patch/perl style do not work.

(3)  It should at least document how one may add support for a new system.
     From this point of view the fileutils, etc., and the patch/perl are good,
     while the gdb/binutils style are frightful.  Even with gcc, it is
     pretty horrendous styling it for a new OS on a known processor.

(4)  I should also like to see better ability to evade some of the excesses
     which pervade GNU Makefiles.  I approve of the desire to see everything
     compiled with '-g', for example, but there are two important cases where
     this is simply inappropriate: (1) where space is at a premium; and (2)
     where the '-g' option is an error, as when compiling with gcc on many
     common platforms.

(5)  I am surprised that there is such little consistency in the use of
     certain -D options; for example, -DUSG in some GNU utilities may mean
     'use strchr instead of index', in others 'don't use bcopy, bzero, etc.',
     but in some it seems to assume the presence of numerous SYSV features.
     Perhaps there ought to be mention of this (with suggestions) in the
     standards documents.

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

As someone who does a lot of GNU compilation, and who is getting into
cross compilation gradually, I don't mind editing Makefiles, but someone
who wants automatic configuration to take place after one or two commands
would find this method unsatisfactory.

>	Donn Cave, University Computing Services, University of Washington
>	donn@cac.washington.edu

     -- Owen
     A. V. Le Blanc
     University of Manchester
     LeBlanc@mcc.ac.uk