2011/1/13 Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com>: > On Thursday 13 January 2011, Юрий Пухальский wrote: >> Good day. >> >> I'll throw my humble userish $0.02 in here. >> >> First of all, i like the idea of autotools working in any POSIX >> enviroment, requiring a set of tools that is everywhere by definition. >> Because when for example i try to compile my project in hostile >> environment with suspicious admins that watch every my step - >> requiring GNU make would be a hindrance. There are very many >> seriously old systems out there, at least here, in poor Russia. >> > OK, so you're telling me that asking to install just GNU make is > perceived by some admins as an unreasonable, suspicious request. > I'd never guessed by myself that this could be the case, really. > That's bad news for me, but I'm glad that I'm now aware of it at > least. It's not that they don't like GNU make, but - i work in the company that makes card processing solutions - the banks are suspicious about stuff very often. It's normal. It's not entirely impossible to have a local copy of a gmake there to build the project, but these are the questions one might need to answer: what's this, and what does it do, what do you need it for... So i repeat, it's basically - as to my experience - not a real problem, but merely a hindrance. Another thing might be - and with me it was - to explain admin what i need. Because sometimes they don't know how to install stuff from sources, or maybe know how, but don't want to take responsibility (it might be the reason in most cases). The systems there very often lack gmake and stuff, probably because they're installed it out of a box, then added oracle and there's all to it, the system's ready for the tasks we need it for. This i tell from my own experience with hostile environments i must sometimes compile in:) So yes, dependance on gmake will be seen as a regress at least by me.
> >> Also, if we step away from requiring only a standard set of tools, >> that makes a precedent. Next step would easily be to require bash >> (which, by the way, i believe to be much more ubiquitous that >> gnu/bsd-make). That will surely clarify the utilities' code, if we >> drop the support of them old shells. So the same reasoning will apply >> to this also. So the trend, i'm afraid, will be like this - stick to >> GNU software. I have nothing against it, but that is a thing to >> consider - a balance between developers' lazyness and users' comfort. >> (I already don't like that the autotools' set requires gnu M4). >> > > Thanks for your contribution. It's always useful to hear the > opinions and experiences of a real user. > > Regards, > Stefano > -- «The good thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.»
