Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: external people regularly ask but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make GNU/whatever ? External people seem to ask weird questions. I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a must have for a portable project. You'll loose less time if you write a nice and small ./configure shell script by hand. I've such a script for few portable projects; it respects the gnu standards and just works. Drop me a line if you need examples/hints. -- Alexandre
Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools
On Thursday 15 November 2012, Reyk Floeter wrote: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: external people regularly ask but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make GNU/whatever ? External people seem to ask weird questions. I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a must have for a portable project. Yuck! That's all a matter of perspective. If you work on sane platforms like Linux and BSDs, you always think what do I need this autotools/libtool crap for, it would be much easier without them. But once you work on really weird platforms like AIX and do non-trivial tasks (like building shared libraries :-o ), autotools/libtool are sent from heaven and are really *so* much easier to use than what is available natively. I guess another example is Mac OS with its universal binaries that may contain both 32 and 64 bit, and both intel and powerpc code in the same file. Also, for non-trivial projects, the advice don't write portable make files, use a portable make instead is very much true. Posix compatible make lacks even the most basic features. Stefan
Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: external people regularly ask but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make GNU/whatever ? External people seem to ask weird questions. I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a must have for a portable project. Yuck! It is a reason why I don't understand and at the same time deeply respect our ports people: they have to mess with this stuff all the time! For all the GNU people, here is how a Makefile for hello.c should look like: PROG= hello NOMAN= yes .include bsd.prog.mk Yes, you're supposed to provide a man page hello.1 and remove the NOMAN line :) Reyk Well, latest one, turns out gnu-m4 has relly sloppy regexp handling. Namely, stuff like regexp(`n', `?') *works* with gm4... I know somewhat incredible... our regexpes obviously will not like ? like that, since it's not a normal character, and gnu regexp handling is such a bluberring piece of code that it works... very reproducible, very so secure. Reminds me of gnu libtool dropping silently stuff it doesn't understand... oh wait, of course, *that* regexp is in the autoconf much leading to gnu libtool. Gee, what a surprise...
Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Reyk Floeter r...@openbsd.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: external people regularly ask but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make GNU/whatever ? External people seem to ask weird questions. I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a must have for a portable project. Yuck! It is a reason why I don't understand and at the same time deeply respect our ports people: they have to mess with this stuff all the time! For all the GNU people, here is how a Makefile for hello.c should look like: PROG= hello NOMAN= yes .include bsd.prog.mk Yes, you're supposed to provide a man page hello.1 and remove the NOMAN line :) not sure gnu people should include bsd.prog.mk (;
Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools
On Nov 15, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Reyk Floeter r...@openbsd.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Marc Espie es...@nerim.net wrote: external people regularly ask but why you don't want to use GNU/m4 GNU/make GNU/whatever ? External people seem to ask weird questions. I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a must have for a portable project. Yuck! It is a reason why I don't understand and at the same time deeply respect our ports people: they have to mess with this stuff all the time! The amount of hardcoding in Makefiles for GNU make is astounding given the (flexible enough) design of GNU make. It's not as good as it could be, but there are so many blunt tutorials and documentations available. They all fail to use the tricks that have been used by BSDs for ages. It's always hardcoding this, explicitly calling that... It's not surprising that so many auto* and other magical make systems have been build on top of that rocky foundation. I've tried to work on a GNU compatible prog.mk and the like, but they are barely in shape: https://github.com/fichtner/peak/blob/master/prog.mk And then you still have to deal with differences in include syntax and bugs like not handling paths in multiple layers of include files correctly. For all the GNU people, here is how a Makefile for hello.c should look like: PROG= hello NOMAN= yes .include bsd.prog.mk Yes, you're supposed to provide a man page hello.1 and remove the NOMAN line :) Reyk Well, latest one, turns out gnu-m4 has relly sloppy regexp handling. Namely, stuff like regexp(`n', `?') *works* with gm4... I know somewhat incredible... our regexpes obviously will not like ? like that, since it's not a normal character, and gnu regexp handling is such a bluberring piece of code that it works... very reproducible, very so secure. Reminds me of gnu libtool dropping silently stuff it doesn't understand... oh wait, of course, *that* regexp is in the autoconf much leading to gnu libtool. Gee, what a surprise...
Re: ##@!#@# gnu tools
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Reyk Floeter wrote:
External people seem to ask weird questions.
I just had to dig into autoconf/auto* because it seems to be a must
have for a portable project.
Here's a simple configure replacement you could use for such projects:
#!/bin/sh
foo() {
ed -s $0 - 'EOF'
/^echo/,/^foo$/d
w
q
EOF
exit
}
echo Just edit the Makefile.
foo
echo Please do not run this script again.
foo
echo I told you, didn't I?
foo
echo STOP IT! Or I'll destroy myself.
foo
rm -f -- $0
Of course, the very first message is only necessary if there actually
*are* some system dependend things that can't be easily set by just
passing some variable assignments to make(1).
Ciao,
Kili
ps: while we are about annoyances -- I thought about a little project
(suitable for ports category education which would
- remove a random file when run without arguments.
- remove a few random files when run with -?.
- remove a lot of random files when run with --help.
This would be clearly documented in the man page of it.
