[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: autoconf
- From: Juergen Fuhrmann <fuhrmann@...>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:51:02 +0100 (MET)
> Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:44:53 -0800 (PST)
> Andy Tai <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I would to mention that a patch to add autoconf
> support to the Lua distribution exists at
> It was against an earlier version of Lua, but I would
> guess it also works for the latest 4.1 "work" version.
So this may be the way to go: someone supports this patch, and
autoconf writes the makefile config, and this stuff is put on the Lua
wiki or so.
My opinion on autoconf: this stuff has been made to find out the way
how lots of non-ANSI features are available. Lua _is_ ANSI, so there
is no need to use autoconf. The only thing I have to find out for Lua
is which compiler to use. If there is more than one on the system, I
anyway will have to tell this even to configure.
I just tried
cc -O2 -o bin/lua -Iinclude -Isrc src/*.c src/lib/*.c src/lua/*.c -lm
from lhf's post, and it works. No more to say. May be you provide a
dummy configure sript, this would resolve the problem ;-)
I am compiling Lua in an automated configuration processs, and I do so
with other, autoconf'ed packages. When it comes to installation into
non-standard places (what I am doing) I don't see any advantage from
autoconf as anyway I have to fiddle with the flags to autoconf to get
it to work. configure/make/make install only works when I put stuff
into /usr/local the standard way. In any other situation, I have to
look what make install really does in order to get things right.
So please do not force the use of autoconf, may be for people who like
configure/make/make install someone could maintain a patch on the wiki.
Numerical Mathematics & Scientific Computing
Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics
Mohrenstr. 39 10117 Berlin fon:+49 30 20372560 fax:+49 30 2044975