Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:52:43 +0000 From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD equivalents of autoconf, automake, etc. Message-ID: <20041217235243.GA89288@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <419CE10A.20803@mukappabeta.de> References: <20041118160531.GA43779@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20041118101808.11092f21@dolphin.local.net> <20041118163221.GB45289@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> <20041118165953.GA46467@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <419CE10A.20803@mukappabeta.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 06:51:06PM +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote: : Jonathon McKitrick wrote: : : >This is exactly what I needed. I wanted to experiment with building, : >installing, linking, and the same with my own test 'libraries.' It looks : >like this is much easier than autoconf. : : Why do you want to use autoconf at all, if you want to build on only one At first I was only going to start a new personal project, and that can be BSD only. : system? Autoconf (and automake/libtool) was, as originally intended, : designed to ease cross-platform portability. I'm starting to wonder. But if I want to work on my new project at home, I'll need to come up with some kind of a system. It'll be running on Linux at work, and BSD at home. Besides, it will need a professional looking/acting installation script when it is done, and it will have to work on both platforms. jm -- I love feminist movements, especially when I'm walking behind them.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041217235243.GA89288>