On 8/10/05, Ronald G Minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if the objections to how p9p builds is the now-common syndrome > of viewing the world through Linux and/or GNU eyes only. I see this > frequently -- packages modified to be better on linux, or under some > wacky GNU build environment, which then break on other OSes.
Nah, that was not my point, then we misunderstood each other. I don't like the GNU way as well. My impression can be summed up to "why using shell scripts, make and mk - instead of make and mk" - which means getting rid of shell scripts at first glance seemed me to make it simplier. But as mentioned I understand the sense of 9* shell scripts. > It's the new definition of portable -- "It builds fine on all versions > of gentoo I've tried, but only with kernel 2.6.9". > > p9p is remarkable to me in that it builds on anything, without automake, > configure, autoconfig, dev-wrappers, and that other horrible stuff. You > just type make. What a concept! > > GNU has somehow managed to create a "portability environment" which is > far less portable and and far less convenient than p9p, but also about > 100 times harder to deal with. NOT progress. There's a lesson in p9p > that I wish the GNU world would heed. Tell that the GNU morons, I'm hopefully far away from them... I prefer one system, wether make or mk doesn't matters and try to reduce all additional dependencies when possible. Maybe the GNU world prefers shell scripts+m4+autoconf+automake+Make+ant+wtf to build their software, because they want to notice the build process at a speed level with todays computers they can follow (./configure == for each line; perform line; sleep 2s; continue;)... Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361
