At lsub we are doing a bit of work on a db for linux. To make a long story short, autoconf/automake/xmkmf/whatelse? made the code so non portable that a particular version of suse is now necessary to run the thing.
Isn't that the opposite of what auto* was trying to achieve? I'd just say: say no. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-boun...@9fans.net] On Behalf Of >> lu...@proxima.alt.za >> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 11:58 PM >> To: 9fans@9fans.net >> Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject) >> >> >> Agreed wholeheartedly. Thing is, It's autoconf that needs careful >> >> redesign: >> > >> > I don't see any need for autoconf. As one wise person put it to me, >> > "things like configure and autoconf just mean you don't know how to >> > write portable code". >> > >> Again, agreed, but reality out there suggests many others are still >> believers, no matter how misguided. We were discussing making >> available Open Source ports... > > What your discussing is adding massive complexity. I would prefer to not have > the tools and programs, and retain simplicity, rather than add outlandish > complexity. > >> >> > I still like to point people at plan 9 ports as an example of a >> > complex system that gets by without this *conf* nonsense. >> >> It falls over just enough to be attacked. Otherwise, p9p source would have >> been ported back to Plan 9 in its entirety. It's a shame, >> really, and with some work it could be fixed, but some of that work is >> design work. >> >> ++L >> >> PS: I realise that I'm proposing two nearly orthogonal objectives, sorry >> that I didn't clarify that sooner. > > > >
