On Tue, Mar 23, 2010, Reuben Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 March 2010 10:15, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > > * On Mon, Mar 22, 2010, Reuben Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * 2010/3/22 Russell Shaw <[email protected]>: > > > > [on this ident level, see at the end] > > > poor support for installing interpreted languages, > > > and also conversely for build-time compiled programs. > > > > Yes, also for coffee-cooking there is poor support only. :-) > > Sure, but autotools is for building programs, not for making coffee.
Yes, but in the same way someone can argue that it is to compile or cross-compile packages, not to cross-compile-and-create-tools-on-the-fly. You can create tools but putting in in an own package (which IMHO is the common case, usually you do not include compiler or bison sources etc in the package). What I wanted to say was that there is a way how autoconf supports that (having a package for the needed tools), so I would not like to pay the additional complexity to get a `shorter' way (which to me even has a bit of a taste of a hack...). > > I don't think build-time compiled C programs shall be > > suppored while cross compiling. I think it already is complex > > enough. Otherwise you had to do all checks twice and end up > > in many variables with confusing names, and those who are not > > cross-compiling probably accidently will mix them. > > On the contrary, this is a very useful feature (why should one > not be able to build host programs when cross-compiling?) Yes, coffee-cooking also would be a very useful feature (why should one not be able to have coffee while waiting for the cross-compilation process?) :-) SCNR. Autoconf supports that. Just make a package for the tool and install it. I know this is inconvenient in your special case. Also I don't like too big package dependencies (a pain if someone must install heaps of packages to get something compiled - if someone here disagree, make an experiment: install a ten years old linux and install a recent 3D game on it or KDE5 or so :-)). > for which support in autoconf would simplify developers' life > (even the ad-hoc support in binutils that I mentioned is pretty > easy to use). Yes, I see your point. But it's complex... How do users specify to use a non-standard compiler with special flags to compile your helper tool? > > > > I though of perl, but (A), i don't like slow tools, > > > > (I think Perl is fast) > > Me too, the above assertion was not written by me! You missed > the author line at the top from the original author of these > double-quoted comments. Yes, I know and the ident level is correct; sorry for not including the poster's name (I fixed it this time, hopefully correct, gmail threading is not that good and in my mutt box I already deleted the older messages). (I didn't wrote to you but to the list and I never ever wanted to blame or critise anyone!) oki, Steffen
