seth at cql.com
Tue Aug 30 01:40:17 EDT 2005
Isaac Jones wrote:
>Sven Panne <Sven.Panne at aedion.de> writes:
>>I'd really be happy to learn how the problems mentioned above could be solved
>>without autotools or basically re-inventing autotools, seriously. I hate
>>writing obscure lines in M4 and sh probably as much as you do, but I can't
>>see a viable alternative. Rewriting all this stuff (plus all the utilities
>>used in the macros!) in Haskell doesn't look very attractive and realistic...
>I should point out that re-inventing autotools has never been a goal
>of Cabal. We do work to detect a few things, like the ghc version and
>such, but I don't see this expanding into a reimplementation of
>autotools. We have the ability to interface with autotools, though,
>which I think is appropriate.
I didn't intend to say or imply anything about Cabal and autoconf.
Sorry about any confusion.
I was talking about autoconf in general. I argued (still arguing :-)
) that autoconf is not the best way to handle platform variations.
Sven argued that, if I did use my concept, I'd end up reimplementing
autoconf. (I still don't buy this. :-) )
Again, sorry for any confusion; personally, sorry for being unclear.
Sven: It is probably a good idea to take this to it's own thread.
>Libraries mailing list
>Libraries at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libraries