> You may well be right that there's too much momentum behind > autoconf/automake to change GNU. But that doesn't mean it's the right > thing to do, or something sensible people ought to choose to > participate in.
to be a bit more blunt, the argument that the tyrrany of the auto* is unstoppable and will persist for all time is persuasive. so i choose at this point to get off the gnu train and do something that affords more time for solving problems, rather than baby sitting tools (that baby sit tools)+. i believe "no" is a reasoned answer, when faced with an argument that takes the form of "everybody's doing it, and you can't stop it". i suppose everybody has had that ex-boss. i also think it's reasonable, as anthony points out, just to avoid shared libraries, if that's the pain point. sure, one can point out various intracacies of bootstrapping gnu c. but i think that's missing the point that the plan 9 community is making. many of these wounds are self-inflicted, and if side-stepping them gets you to a solution faster, then please side step them. there's no credit for picking a scab. please do take a look at plan9ports. it's portable across cpu type and os without fanfare, or even much code. plan 9 is similar, but much simpler, since it doesn't need to fend off the os. - erik
