Seth Kurtzberg 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.


>  isaac
>Libraries mailing list
>Libraries at haskell.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/libraries/attachments/20050830/df4a4277/attachment.htm

More information about the Libraries mailing list