On 16-Aug-06, 20:49 (CDT), Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As for useless autoconf tests - have you looked at how autoconf is
> used? You pick the tests you think you need. It's not like the system
> forces you to use a certain range of obsolete baseline tests. A huge
> number of test macros are provided, but nobody forces you to use them.
But everybody does, to the point where it now often takes (much!) longer
to run configure than to actually build the program. And, for example,
all of a sudden (autoconf 2.5, I think) every/many (newly generated
or regenerated) configure script starting checking for C++ compilers,
Fortran compilers, etc. etc. etc. even for pure C projects. I don't
know if this is something that changed in autoconf, or something that
changed in one of the higher level autotools. I don't particularly care.
It's not whether or not autoconf itself requires this behavriour, it's
that de-facto, *most* autotools using projects exhibit this behaviour.
Probably because the examples or templates use it, and it's easier to
use them unchanged than actually think about what they're doing.
See, my argument is not that autconf *can't* be used in a wise manner;
my argument is that it tends to lead to bad usage, widely propogated.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
