From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Johannes Weiner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs vista build failures Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:29:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87vdyzxype.fsf@saeurebad.de> 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> <87zloggji9.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <878wvxxkn6.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87ej5oz4pb.fsf@saeurebad.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1216639823 12549 80.91.229.12 (21 Jul 2008 11:30:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:30:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, lord@emf.net, drobinow@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 21 13:31:06 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 1KKtbb-0002AO-UF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:31:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38155 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KKtah-0000EA-Bk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:30:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KKtad-0000CT-0A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:30:03 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KKtaa-00009p-FB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:30:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54646 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KKtaa-00009d-9O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:30:00 -0400 Original-Received: from saeurebad.de ([85.214.36.134]:38803) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KKtaM-0001vi-K7; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:29:47 -0400 Original-Received: by saeurebad.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id 2E1632F0048; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:29:45 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (217-68-166-249.dynamic.primacom.net [217.68.166.249]) by saeurebad.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BFB2F0006; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:29:44 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: (Richard M. Stallman's message of "Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:29:37 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.3 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:101066 Archived-At: Hi, Richard M Stallman writes: > > My question concerns looking beyond X to the free software community > > as a whole. Has there been a broader move towords supporting the GNU > > configure and build specs? > > Maybe you heard the term `autohell' once? > > Actually no. It seems to be a criticism of something. > Perhaps Autoconf, or perhaps not -- I have no way to tell. autoconf, automake, and so on. Actually, I heard people referring to the whole generation of configure scripts and Makefiles as `autohell'. Yes, it's ovbiously a criticism. > If you are talking about Autoconf, then you've misunderstood what this > issue is about. It is not about using Autoconf. It is about > implementing the interface specified in the GNU Coding Standards. > Let's please stick to the topic. Which means using the auto tools, be realistic. Who writes configure scripts manually? I have no interest in discussing theory when we have so much reality going on. People are not only moving away from the interface itself but also from the default tools to generate them, because they are still too complex to use. The interface difference is worked around by the package maintainers, they are prepared to support different building mechanisms. Hannes