Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Alright; I'll make an extra effort to avoid non-portable Make
>> assumptions then. It's just... portable Make _sucks_ (not that
>> non-portable Make doesn't).
> It might be fine to require GNU make if there is a good reason for it
> -- many projects do.  But requiring random bits and pieces of the "GNU
> toolchain", such as one or more of GNU Bash, GNU grep, GNU tar, or,
> well, printf :-), in most cases simply causes annoyance for very
> little added value.  Junior developers, or those only exposed to
> Linux, frequently simply assume that everyone has access to the tools
> they use on their development system, and fail to document that
> assumption.  I'm sure we can do better than that.

Oh, I quite agree. Sorry, I should have been more clear. (And I still
don't think "printf" should qualify as "part of the GNU toolchain" ;)'s been part of POSIX for a good long time.) I was mostly talking
about GNU Make, I think, and little else.

Basically, if it's not POSIX, I doubt I'll use it, and I'll tend to not
use it beyond how POSIX says it should work, unless I _know_ that the
extension I'm using is portable anyway. And even POSIX isn't perfect,
many systems fail to conform to it in various ways. I was recently
surprised to find that the awk Ubuntu ships with by default (mawk), does
not support POSIX character classes ([[:space:]] etc), and had to modify
the fun little script I use to colorize include the shell's joblist in
the prompt (

Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to