Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!vixie From: vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Installation woes (Re: Passing on unwanted groups) Message-ID: Date: 26 Aug 90 19:45:14 GMT References: <1990Aug15.164651.26664@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Aug21.161506.21784@zoo.toronto.edu> <3ND5KOC@xds13.ferranti.com> <5fq0f2.zm6@smurf.sub.org> <1990Aug26.195308.11696@maytag.waterloo.edu> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: DEC Western Research Lab Lines: 16 In-Reply-To: gamiddle@maytag.waterloo.edu's message of 26 Aug 90 19:53:08 GMT [Guy Middleton] >> This is exactly why I don't like Configure. I have ten different >> architecture [sic] here, and a canned set of Build-answers for each one. >> I can maintain everything from a single machine, instead of running >> Configure ten times every time I need to recompile. I do this by saving aside the .sh and .h files that "Configure" builds. Granted, Configure would be a lot better if it supported multiple architectures -- but then, so would Make. There have been a lot of attempted solutions (VPATH comes to mind), none of which solves the problem as well as handcrafted and handmaintained symlinks do. Don't blame Configure for the world's ills. -- Paul Vixie DEC Western Research Lab Palo Alto, California ...!decwrl!vixie