Keith Wesolowski wrote: > ... a generic set of Makefiles that works on recent versions of common > systems (Solaris, GNU/Linux, BSD, and HPUX) would actually be more > useful...
This makes a lot of sense and seems, AFAICT to be a viewpoint with lots of support. I also like your argument about gcc and Studio (e.g. it's misleading to give a demotion only because an app compiles fine with gcc but not Sun Studio). So no doubt a revision to the experiment's rating system is needed. On the topic of a machine-readable metadata repository itself and whether converging on a single standard would be better than anything that could occur in this arena... Of course, absolutely. But regarding your assertion that the emergence of a widely admired and respected individual would motivate the leaders of the existing camps to join forces...? Sorry, I don't think that would have much impact on the motivation needle. (In fact very little if any, IMO.) > ... It's pretty easy to take a machine-readable > repository and offer a human-readable front-end like this one... By saying "_a_ machine-readable repository", you're missing a key concept though. An _arbitrary_ number of machine-readable respositories (not just one) can easily feed into a single human-readable front-end. > Even in the cases in which autoconf gets it right, libtool will > *ALWAYS* produce broken libraries. So really I'd give a big fat -4 to > any component that delivers a library and uses libtool to build it, If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...? Maybe? In other words, I guess I don't know (yet) what I think of this. Q: Does anybody have a sense (or a SWAG) of what percentage of open-source apps and tools that deliver libraries use libtool to build them? Eric
