[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Lua 4.1 (work4)
- From: Kenneth Gangstoe <kennethg@<a href="/cgi-bin/echo.cgi?mail.com">...</a>>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:00:27 +0100
Quoting John D. Ramsdell (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> Daniel Silverstone <email@example.com> writes:
> > Lua /is/ easy to install, perhaps not for people who don't know what they're
> > doing when they install software which isn't pre-packaged, but then again,
> > is that such a bad thing?
> This is false. Lua is not easy to install. For autoconfig'ed
> systems, one simply types:
> $ ./configure
> $ make
> $ make install
> There are no instructions to read, and the process can be automated.
> This is what it means for software to be easily installed.
> The current Lua install method requires that one edit it's makefile.
> The makefile has it's own conventions that are different from every
> other package. It's a waste of time to ask programmers to go through
> this process.
> Autoconf solved this problem a long time ago. It's well tested
> software that is accepted by the community. There is a reason so many
> people use it.
The reason so many use it, is that so many use it :) It doesn't mean its good.
Actually, most people I talk to think its total crap system to support alot
of broken unix'es, but they still use it since its "standard".