autoconf and erlang
Thu May 13 08:38:55 CEST 2004
Although the idea of using a revision control system built in Haskell is
cool, would it not be more practical/expedient to use e.g. Subversion
(which we contentedly use) or Arch? What would darcs give us that over
them? If there are major advantages in using a functional language, why
not create evcs too? :-)
Using Subversion has avoided tying us permanently to network connections
and allows us to work remotely, which a life saver in unexpected
circumstances! The Swedes would laugh in hysterics to see the effect a
few inches of snow has on British society!
On Wed, 12 May 2004 17:09:26 +0200
Luke Gorrie <> wrote:
> Hal Snyder <> writes:
> > We are using autoconf to build all our Erlang apps these days.
> > It helps with the following things:
> > a. portability (we need to run on several platforms)
> > b. selection of development vs. production environments when
> > building
> > c. integrates well with packaging system (pkgsrc) which helps config
> > &
> > release management
> > This sort of relates to EPAN idea and recent publicity thread, if a
> > consistent build setup can be developed.
> The Jungerl does this somewhat. There we have a top-level autoconf
> that is shared by all applications and some Makefile includes that
> take care of all the usual stuff. Anyone should feel free to extend
> I remember having troubles when we recently tried to build Jungerl on
> Joe's machine, which is a pity, but I don't remember exactly what went
> wrong. I'm trying to fix a couple of simple things just now, but,
> really, Sourceforge is unusable these days.
> By the way, I've been playing a little bit with these "next
> generation" version control tools intended to replace CVS. I can
> report that Darcs (http://abridgegame.org/darcs/) is worth a look.
BSc hons. Comp Sci & Cyb
Newport Networks Limited
Tel: + 44 (0) 1494 470 681
More information about the erlang-questions