From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thomas Lord Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:05:15 -0700 Message-ID: <487FDE3B.2020208@emf.net> References: <36366a980807101702r5677d096g8e62ef5b3e278868@mail.gmail.com> <4eb0089f0807111217m66d6cf4el777c197c107ce034@mail.gmail.com> <87skug6tq5.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4eb0089f0807111345h13eccdds9b2cf43370b94074@mail.gmail.com> <4eb0089f0807121340x5e26f6dbve03ef50b238f3a3a@mail.gmail.com> <87k5fph5rh.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <20080713214648.GB1076@muc.de> <20080714195651.GF3445@muc.de> <487C5FA3.4070603@emf.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216336725 17575 80.91.229.12 (17 Jul 2008 23:18:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, drobinow@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 18 01:19:33 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KJck1-0005q3-Gf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:18:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56102 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KJcj5-00007B-12 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:17:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KJcj1-00006A-66 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:17:27 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KJciy-00005d-0w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:17:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56048 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KJcix-00005a-Pi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:17:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.42inc.com ([205.149.0.25]:55542) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (SSL 3.0:RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KJcip-00042z-96; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:17:16 -0400 X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.5 X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter-42inc: Scanned X-42-Virus-Scanned: by 42 Antivirus -- Found to be clean. Original-Received: from [69.236.114.9] (account lord@emf.net HELO [192.168.1.64]) by mail.42inc.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.13) with ESMTPA id 35177284; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:16:55 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060808) In-Reply-To: X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:100905 Archived-At: Richard M Stallman wrote: > It is a failure of the GNU project and of the free software movement > that there is so much emphasis on monolithic distributions and binary > package distributions. It is a failure of the GNU project and the free > software movement that one so often encounters distros that offer to > not install source trees and even offer to not install development > environments. > > The words "it is a failure of" are ambiguous. They could literally > mean "it is a goal we have not achieved", but they also suggest > placing the blame for this on us. > You're a better speaker than me, I think. It's not blame. It's an attempt to egg on in a direction for which I wish to advocate. > Certainly these are goals we have not achieved, but if others do not > follow our recommendations, that's their decision, not ours. When I > designed the GNU specs for configuring and building source packages, I > hoped that free software developers generally would adopt them, but > they did not. > A heck of a lot of them did. That isn't the problem. In my view the problem is that the specs were short-sighted in some key ways -- too much pain and not enough benefit. I'd be happy to take discussion of this view off-list though I'm reluctant to go into it here, given Stefan's recent feedback. > I tried at one point to convince XFree86 to support the GNU > configuration spec. I even found a volunteer to implement that as a > wrapper around their existing configuration mechanism. But they did > not consider such compatibility very important, and I don't think they > installed this wrapper. > The GNU standards buy a little but not a lot and there are better ways to do it. We should talk. > To convince free software projects generally to adopt this spec > would require more pressure from the community in general. > No. A lot of the reason people *do* more or less use GNU standards is personal convenience -- autoconf / GNU make / etc. make it easier than many alternatives. Better standards and better (and simpler) tools could amplify that effect and have nicer side effects. To be fair, you folks were solving a different problem, in the moment, way back then. A complete GNU system was quite a ways off and, as a good tactic, the most immediate need was producing packages that were not hard to build and install on a diverse range of proprietary Unix systems. That problem got solved pretty well but at a strategic cost of being under-prepared for the "scale up" problems of managing source for a complete system (imo). > It is easy to call names (such as calling the GNU Coding Standards > "anemic"), but given that many programs' developers won't even > implement those, I doubt we would obtain much compliance for stricter > ones. > If you ever think I'm "calling names" except in the case of geopolitical polemics about fascists and such then please first, instead, think: "This is an area where I can help Tom improve his writing," since I almost certainly did not mean to "call names." I do mean "anemic" in the sense of "vulnerable" or "slightly feeble". It took and takes a lot of code to support those standards and the pay-off fails to address many of the needs of a complete, portable system. Stricter standards, better thought out, with simpler tools that realize them might (plausibly would) find stepped up adoption. So, I guess now I have to echo Stefan to me and say, to be clear, that I assure you I intended no insult. -t > >