unofficial mirror of guile-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tomas@fabula.de
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: AARRRRGGH! Die Libtool, die!
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:24:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030218112431.GC28905@www> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200302160056.QAA15802@morrowfield.regexps.com>

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 04:56:12PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> 

[perl or python instead of sh]

> Bah.
> 
> Both perl and python are not stable. [...]

Whereas I consider Perl or Python more appropriate than sh for such
things, this is a real problem. To watch this in action see what
happens to the Debian packaging system when Perl `grows' a bit ;-)

> The problems with the auto* family of tools include:
> 
> 	1) reliance on separate distribution
[...]
Definitely. I'd dream of a very small embeddable interpreter
with stable semantics and a tight C interface, very portable,
uh, wait a minute.

> 	2) wrong approach to application portability
[...]
Many things have changed from the beginnings of Auto*. That's true.

> 	3) wrong approach to /bin/sh portability (m4)
[...]
I don't really think that /bin/sh is the right tool for this job.
Especially not the mythical monster called ``portable shell''.

> 	4) wrong approach to makefile portability
[...]
I have more issues with /bin/sh than with M4, actually. OK, M4 may
be obscure, but it has at least semantics ;-)

> 	5) wrong approach to makefile automation
[...]
If everyone had GNU Make... (but you're quite right: the only widespread
non-Unixoid platform out there probably will have GNU Make whenever it
has some form of /bin/sh: via Cygwin. Times have changed).

> 	6) lack of consideration for package management
[...]
Uh, oh. Do you mean offering `hooks' to package management systems to
let them gather whatever bits of information they need? Or yet-another-
package-management-system? Tightly coupled to an application build
framework, at that.

> 	7) excessive complexity
[...]
Absolutely. I think we agree that this stems mainly from 3), 4) and 5).

I'll definitely look into your project.

Thanks
-- tomas


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel


  reply	other threads:[~2003-02-18 11:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-15 14:36 AARRRRGGH! Die Libtool, die! Han-Wen Nienhuys
2003-02-15 20:46 ` Rob Browning
2003-02-15 23:54   ` Han-Wen Nienhuys
2003-02-16  0:56     ` Tom Lord
2003-02-18 11:24       ` tomas [this message]
2003-02-18 17:14       ` Rob Browning
2003-02-18 18:50         ` rm
2003-02-19 13:04           ` tomas
2003-02-21 17:28           ` Rob Browning
2003-02-16  1:09     ` Rob Browning
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-15 14:26 Han-Wen Nienhuys
2003-02-18 11:04 ` tomas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030218112431.GC28905@www \
    --to=tomas@fabula.de \
    --cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).