On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:23:17 -0800 Keith M Wesolowski wrote: "... no autoconf in ON ..."
> It's fine for AT&T to offer components that autoconfigure if that's > what their customers want. There's some value in being able to get > some kind of hopefully useful binary out of a pile of source code on > HPUX, Solaris, GNU/Linux, and ConvexOS. But that's not a problem we > have. This is ON. We know what the environment offers, and we know > what interfaces are available to us. And if those change in a way we > don't expect, we want to know *before* a user complains about it. > Dead code has no place in ON, and workarounds for bugs and > incompatibilities in other operating systems should be present only > when needed to interoperate with those systems - not to build on or > for them. "... offer autoconfigure if that's what their customers want ..." what is the context for this statement? customers want code that builds and runs without intervention they want it to run on all of their systems from windows through unix through MVS they want it to behave the same modulo resources on all of their systems "opensolaris lets you write beautiful code" ... that most likely would be stuck in opensolaris or would require configuration for other systems, *including posix* are any GNU components in ON? perl? emacs? suppose that entry into ON requires removal of all iffe/configure who takes the responsibility for: (1) ripping out iffe/configure for each package update (2) validating that the package+configure is the same as package-configure -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
