%% Regarding Re: FVWM: Gnu configure on next realease ???;
%% <matusita_at_ics.es.osaka-u.ac.jp> writes:
amartin> This is why configure takes the options --x-includes=DIR and
amartin> --x-libraries=DIR so that you can manually override configure.
mm> I want configure to detect which X is used by automatically :-)
It will... it automatically uses the info for the X that's first in your
path variables. Same as xmkmf.
mm> Well, the point that I want NOT to use GNU autoconf is "Writing
mm> appropriate configure.in and/or related stuff (to make configure
mm> configure script) is difficult than writing appropriate
mm> Imakefile". I want NOT to force all developer who want to
mm> contribute/write a module for fvwm.
Yes, you have a point. Writing an autoconf configure script is probably
more difficult for a developer than a a simple Imakefile, although
straightforward autoconf environments aren't very complex, really: just
use the samples that come with autoconf... I wrote one for a project of
mine in a few hours, and that was autoconf 1.0 or some such. It's a lot
better now.
But let's be honest, where do we really want the ease-of-use to come?
For the developer, who is one person and does it once, or for each of
the users, who will do it thousands of times (cumulatively)?
Obviously we'd rather the developer spent a little extra time to save
all the users a lot of heart- and headache.
Once the basic modules are autoconf'd, I can't believe that adding a new
one would be tough at all. All the modules will use the config.h
generated by the main fvwm configure, rather than re-running configure
themselves, so it's just a matter of copying another module's
Makefile.in and tweaking it... and probably just a variable or two would
change.
mm> Though configure script is maybe flexible and usable, why only a
mm> few application (except the GNU product) uses GNU autoconf for
mm> generating ? I think many developer want NOT to use GNU
mm> autoconf because of difficulty...
That may be one reason (although I think those developers are not
looking at the big picture if that's their sole reason).
Another might be that people writing X apps find it easier to use X's
config. I don't see hardly any non-X apps using imake, really.
The most telling is probably that imake has been around a lot longer and
has a larger presence than autoconf: there're books about it and some
vendors ship system config files by default. People know about it.
That's no reason to continue using it, though; if that were everyone's
attitude we'd not be using FVWM now :)
Anyway, I think we've beat this subject into the ground. Cheers :)
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Thu May 23 1996 - 23:23:51 BST