[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included.a]

From: Tom Lord
Subject: Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included.a]
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:48:26 -0800 (PST)

       > Let them install BASH and get out of our way.

As someone else pointed out, bash uses autoconf.

Also, while its good to talk about bringing up GNU environments on top
of proprietary ones, the long term view is to also think about
bringing them up on raw iron.

So, pick a small set of prerequisite tools (bash might or might not be
one), and factor the bootstrapping of those tools into a separate
project.  Make that a separate problem, then design the build tools to
take advantage of its having been solved.

Another issue (related in my warped way of looking at things) is all
the compilation of configure/build scripts.  It causes an infinite
supply of inefficiencies, confusions, and little annoyances to have to
compile and -- and with a fixed set of modern
prereqs in place, that can easily be fixed.  While adding shell
functions, get rid of m4 and use a modern make (but don't screw the
bootstrapping of the prereq tools).

Finally, I still wish that a side-effect of the libtool effort was a
document/database that explained clearly and concisely how to deal
with shared libraries in various environments.   As it stands, that
information is weaved into convoluted code and the situation is
glossed over with "trust us -- we're building the right abstractions".


reply via email to

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