[OT] Thank you for not using autoconf
vapier at gentoo.org
Sat Jun 1 03:01:18 UTC 2013
On Friday 31 May 2013 20:36:16 Laurent Bercot wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 02:46:51PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > autotools tends to work a lot more reliably than
> > $random-build-system-of-the-day.
> That's a testimony to the suckiness of $random-build-system-of-the-day,
> not a proof that autotools work well. They don't. They probably suck
> less than most of the things you see, but they still suck.
they suck the least of everything i've seen. i'm not talking about just hand
written build systems.
hell, cmake still can't properly cross-compile things today, and scons forces
you to basically open code support in every project. python is completely
buggered, as is perl. off the top of my head, that covers the major players in
the alternative build system space.
> One simple example: I could *never* make autotools understand that I
> wanted to compile natively for i386, *but* wanted to use the diet libc
> instead of the glibc. Never. To make it work, I had to use horrible hacks
> that would make your ears bleed. I'm still ashamed of those today.
if you properly configured your toolchain, this isn't an issue. if you're
doing hacky stuff like using the host gcc that was built for glibc but trying
to get it to use a dietlibc you've compiled & installed in a random path,
you're going to see pain. but you *should* see pain.
when you build gcc, you configure it for a specific target. it changes its
behavior based on the C library it was built against. trying to use that gcc
with a completely different C library is only going to go down in flames for
everything other than basic "hello world" apps.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the busybox