Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!smoke.cs.toronto.edu!neat.cs.toronto.edu!moraes
Newsgroups: news.software.b
From: moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes)
Subject: Re: Installation woes (Re: Passing on unwanted groups)
Message-ID: <90Aug26.184739edt.417@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
References: <3ND5KOC@xds13.ferranti.com> <5fq0f2.zm6@smurf.sub.org> <1990Aug24.165844.3563@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Aug26.085636.19024@pegasus.com>
Date: 26 Aug 90 22:48:19 GMT
Lines: 23

richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
>As with anything, experiences and tastes vary.  The question is how many
>people would prefer not to have something like Configure -- I suspect
>it is a very small minority.

The question is whether Henry and Geoff want to use something like
Configure.

Configure assumes you haven't touched your system since it was powered
on.  It's really hard to convince Configure to stop outguessing you.
For example, some of our SysV machines have been convinced to see the
error of some of their ways.  Configure gets really upset on such
machines...

Some of us don't like "build" much either, but at least "build"
doesn't make any explicit assumptions -- it has the courtesy of asking
you what it should do.  That's A Good Thing, even if the affectionate
nickname for this process is "The Interrogation".

Time to move on to the discussion about why Henry and Geoff shouldn't
use imake... :-)

	Mark