Re: [reSIProcate] git
On 05/12/12 16:29, Scott Godin wrote:
>> - slightly under half of what you request is explained in the configure
> help text, e.g.
>
> All of what I mentioned is presented to the user via simple Yes/No and path
> based questions that are prompted to you interactively via the old
> configure scripts (without command line options). This made things dead
> simple for users.
I would contend that writing a questionnaire-style wrapper script around
autotools/configure is dramatically easier than adapting the old build
system to do some of the things that autotools does for us now.
In fact, it would even be possible to adapt the old script to work as a
front-end to autotools if this is a higher priority than the other
documentation issues.
- References:
- [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal
- Re: [reSIProcate] git (was: future of resip, autotools/git/packaging proposal)
- Re: [reSIProcate] git
- Re: [reSIProcate] git
- Re: [reSIProcate] git
- Re: [reSIProcate] git