Re: openpackages.org

 > I haven't looked at CONS.  But I think that it would have to be a really,
 > really significant improvement over standard make for us to begin requiring
 > its use for ARK (or PIKT or NTP).  It's still another package for the user
 > to fetch, build, and install.  Are those steps as easy as for current (GNU)
 > make?

    My company has started looking at cons; we're pushing the limits
of what one can do (sanely, maintainably) with make.  Many other
moderate scale projects seem to run into make horrors quickly.  For
some interesting insight into why, see
http://www.pcug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html .


    I'm not really the cons point man for our company, but my
understanding is that cons is just perl code, so should be fairly
portable to anything that runs perl (the web page claims that NT is
known to work well).