Heh, i try to "port" my program, and it's really not possible in my point of view :)
Actually, i don't have working Plan9 right now, reason is quite simple, on my hardware plan9 does do not work (PC emulators couldn't help because my program should work with some special hardware), so i try to create PC from "supported hardware" list, but it take some time to get all pieces, put they together, install, configure plan9 and so on )) Ok, i have no Plan9, but i have my application that i want to port, so i try to remove all autotools macros from it and try to do some preparations, like new abstraction layer for threads creation...and i'm completely failed, just because too much autotools stuff in sources. And it too complicated to figure out what exactly i should remove in every case... And my application much smaller that mesa for example. Or X11 (by the way, how X11 was ported?), and i do not touсh such problems like different library, kernel interfaces and so, and so... So it looks like "project fork" is only way :( 2008/2/3, Paweł Lasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Feb 3, 2008 2:55 AM, Pietro Gagliardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Circular cause and consequence is funny. Let me add to this list: > > - jpg > > - png > > - tiff > > - PostScript > > - TeX (tpic) > > - HTML > > - Mahjongg, sokoban, sudoku, tetris (games/4s) > > - SPARC, MIPS, x64 > > - MP3, PCM, OGG (PAC was made at Bell Labs) > > - SoundBlaster 16 > > > > Let me put it this way: > > GNU software is good, except for GNU development tools, which, > > except for the gcc program itself, are mediocre and break > > compatibility (try using a Bell Labs makefile with GNU make). > > > > I'd add to it the fact that autotools source files are hard to make, so > many people who are to lazy to do it properly just put the famous > (in)sanity check and checks for libs they use. The effect? > > A simple C program that doesn't rely on anything except for example libpng > will check for C, C++, FORTRAN 77 compilers, check if those are from > GCC and various other things. > > Imagine my surprise when I had seen a configure script (for EmacsLisp > utility) that only checked for Emacs version > and few EmacsLisp files it used - a rare thing IMHO, when >80% of > configure running time is for checking for not used > software. > > "CPU cycles are cheap, programmer time is expensive" <--- This doesn't > mean that total laziness is appropriate. > > The best thing about autotools is I think the scheme of running > configure - AFAIK mplayer doesn't even use configure for it's script, > instead > they use their own, which looks the same to end user. And saves a lot > of time :-) > > -- > Paul Lasek >
