On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Macks <dma...@netspace.org> wrote:
> Well, it's fine if you don't intend to test it on those systems, but others > certainly are. For example, I manage the gnome suite for Fink, where our > users can run a fullish gnome desktop environment (I think similar package > suites are available in MacPorts as well). If dconf is trying to be a part > of the gnome desktop, I don't think setting up intentional roadblocks to > portability is a good idea--i.e., it sounds like you're headed towards > hardcoded potentially non-portable methods. > Seems like every time someone tries to reinvent a simpler system, they > either wind up with a buggy mess or something at least as complicated and/or > less portable than libtool (or at least automake). There are already lots of > build-system alternatives (I think KDE recently switched to cmake, which > took years just to be able to build shared libraries properly on OS X). > You're the developer, it's your time to spend as you please obviously, but > seems like there are better things to be doing than reinventing some > already-tested wheels. I generally share your sentiment, and I don't think autotools are nearly as bad (or their competitors as feature-complete) as people make them to be, but I can really sympathize with the desire to kick libtool. libtool is just bad, and it is actively preventing us from making the most of our platform. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list