autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects


From: Austin Schutz
Subject: Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:36:22 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 02:54:21AM +0200, RĂ¼diger Kuhlmann wrote:
> 
> >--[Tom Lord]--<address@hidden>
> 
> >        > It could be that we should tell people to use Bash to build
> >        > GNU packages if their native shells have trouble handling the
> >        > job.  That would be a smaller change and perhaps worth doing.
> > How is `bash' built?
> 
> >         >> You need to be able to compile the bootstrap packages in minimal
> >     >> environments, in order to get a very basic GNU environment.
> >     > I don't think we should do this at all.  The smallest version of the
> >     > GNU system need not be "minimal", and making it so would be extra
> >     > work, so we should not.
> > Well, then I think you agree with me and you should conclude that
> > forking as I've suggested is the right thing to do.
> 
> Actually no. With every more restriction you place on auto*, the less
> portable is auto*. Having to install extra stuff to make things compile may
> be okay, but what's if this particular package isn't available on your
> platform? And: having the maintainer install a package is much less a
> restriction than having the user install an extra package.
> 
> So, please show me a bash for AmigaOS to show that resctricting on bash
> is a good idea. (Hint: there is none. pdksh is all there is.)
> 

        Right, thus the forked tools version which would theoretically support
AmigaOS, so that one could compile bash after some work _just on bash_.
        The logic that doing the work of making a good tool work on some
platforms is better than being forced to use crappy tools all the time
seems awfully reasonable.
        I realize that I'm one of the many who speaks more than he works,
at least on autoconf, but being forced to support all the quirks of all
broken shells, e.g., seems very, and unnecessarily, onerous.

        Austin




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]