On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 11:07:07AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > No, that's not true :) The entire point of the gcc system is to not > let gcc be an alternative; instead we let it be determined on a > per-platform basis. Erm, yeah. That'll teach me not to write ideas down in a hurry. Anyway, the rest of it stands, gcc is just a lousy example. I don't like the autoconf wrapper because it goes wrong too easily (I acknowledge that it's a better solution for autoconf, but it doesn't fit well in this case). Trying to do this for automake would be worse, since it's harder to tell what to run. I see no point in doing something of that complexity anyway, a simple alternative, and calling automake1.4 or whatever when necessary, will handle it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- http://www.debian.org/ | London, UK
Attachment:
pgp918xeCrbOD.pgp
Description: PGP signature