On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 20:38 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > Thats the key number - the amount of benefit that install-sh gives you. > > This violates a core principle of GNU in that "benefits" should be for > the benefit of the recipients of the software rather than for the for > the developers of it. GNU is a communistic/Marxist type model rather > than a capitalistic model. In the old days, the benefits were for the > developers and the users had to muddle through a difficult procedure > for every package that they installed.
I meant the benefit to the community, or even to the folk that end up needing install-sh. I think portability is a great thing, but I also think repeatedly solving the same problem isn't: particular when bug fixes exist :). Anyhow, we're way off the original topic here, and I've achieved my goal - to put my toe in the water about this sort of change ;). > To be sure, I will be quite supportive of a build framework if it is > based on a small package which is easily installed, and the build no > longer needs to be cobbled together with a mismash of Unix utilities. > Of course this build environment needs to be self-contained, well > supported, and would probably take five or seven years to fully > develop. There have been a number of independent attempts in this > direction but it seems that none has come close to the popularity of > autotools. All the ones I've seen have been 90% (or less) solutions and have often [but not always] decided to replace Make with something less powerful : a mistake IMO. I'm fairly sure I know what it would take to do a 100% solution, but its daunting ;). I'm thinking of cmake, waf, scons, primarily here, with cook, bake and others coming in as less well known stabs in the same direction. -Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
