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
next prev parent 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).