Path: utzoo!utstat!utgpu!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!sunybcs!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!news
From: news@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Network News)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Imake (was: Re: Peter's gripes)
Summary: Imake, just say no
Message-ID: <5024@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 1 Feb 90 20:53:47 GMT
References: <7V716AAxds13@ficc.uu.net> <5695@videovax.tv.tek.com> <4100@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Reply-To: news@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Network News)
Organization: University of Rochester
Lines: 23

In article <4100@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> gwollman@jhunix (Garrett A Wollman) writes:
}(I lost the references because RN died on followup... ah well...)

	Something about that article ... anyway

}In article <5695@videovax.tv.tek.com> Bart Massey writes:
}}The X11 people have a configuration system based on a makefile generator
}}called 'imake', which is distributed with the X11R4 stuff.  This system is
}}already fairly general and *very* portable, and does most of what most
}}people seem to want for configuring C News.  I wonder if it wouldn't be
}}worthwhile for Henry and Geoff to use 'imake' as well?
}
}Henry was saying something about how he needs tools to reliably build on a
}wide variety of machines, in response to Peter's comment about Imake.

	I want to publicly support Messrs Spencer and Collyer in their decision
_not_ to use Imake.  We (U of Rochester Computing Center Unix systems support
group) install all non-licensed software into a separate directory tree.  All
the software written at MIT using Imake has been significantly more difficult
for us to "retarget".  I appreciate your effort in writing software for the
most-common-denominator.
--
Scott Leadley - leadley@uhura.cc.rochester.edu