Of course it can. It can be easier, faster and more failproof. Hacking this together in a shell script that tries to run the same on 50 slightly incompatible shells from the 70's is just about the worst way to solve the configuration problems present in compiling software.
The autoconf/automake solution is just a big ball of horribly written duck tape over make, which while a nice hack for very small projects, is surpassed by just about any other solution available today, bar just invoking the compiler and linker directly. That's goes even for single-file "hello world" programs.
It's also completely unmaintainable, which is why no one even bothers trying to fix the ~10 completely irrelevant compilers it checks for even when compiling a pure C program.
That's assuming you're using the GNU autoshit packages, of course. If you wrote your own small, clean and easily modifiable configure and make file, then good for you, but the ./configure could probably be ommited.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-07 16:00
double click, lamers.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-07 16:08
PROTIP: WASTING TIME MANUALLY INSTALLING PROGRAMS DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN EXPERT PROGRAMMER
click applications,
click add/remove,
fag around with jewbuntu's repository
click okay
if, for his home directory, he forgot to include ``--prefix=".
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-07 21:50
>>16
WARNING: [b]WASTING TIME CLICKING MAKES YOU A[/b]FAGGOT
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-07 23:00
>>26
You're a faggot for not doing everything as root.
>>14 That's assuming you're using the GNU autoshit packages, of course. If you wrote your own small, clean and easily modifiable configure and make file, then good for you, but the ./configure could probably be ommited.
Love to, but independent developers can't possibly test on enough systems to work out the appropriate config checks. Everyone's stuck using what appears to have worked for others. A new, well-supported common configuration engine would be very nice for all of us.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-07 23:26
>>14
I read that and agreed with you, but then I realized you're PoppaVic.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 7:09
>>28 A new, well-supported common configuration engine would be very nice for all of us.
CMake. Learn it, use it, love it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 8:03
>>30
Do you know how to get cmake to understand libtool?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 8:05
I prefer MCake. It's more delicious.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 8:25
>>28 You're a faggot for not doing everything as root.
I bet you run KDE as root too.
The documentation is sparse, the examples 404, and the book costs money. And it looks like it needs to be installed on the build machine, unlike autoconf.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-08 11:04
all:
emacs
Just image what would happen if you ran make as root -- you'd quickly exhaust all the available memory on your system, and EMACS would start propagating over the network to adjacent hosts -- simultaneously forcing you to break your pinky trying to stop EMACS, which is futile.
Eventually, EMACS would gain self-consciousness, and thus EMACSNet was born.