[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects
From: |
Bruce Korb |
Subject: |
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:30:57 -0700 |
Glenn McGrath wrote:
> I was thinking the library could be a replacement for what m4 currently
> does,
Oh, a *shell* library using shell functions! Yeah, I've argued that
now and again for years. functionless Bourne shells are
hopeless anachronisms.
> I know people who refuse to use autotools because of bloat/speed issues, i
> guess autotools living in the past makes it unavoidable.
It does. It's a waste of time and developer resources.
My console program contains 750K of configure scripts and
takes as long to configure as to build. Ick. I think it
stupid to spend so much energy supporting hobbyist platforms
from the '70-s and '80-s. Let the hobbyists support themselves.
I have work to do.
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, (continued)
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Pavel Roskin, 2002/10/13
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Soren A, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Dean Povey, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Glenn McGrath, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Bruce Korb, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Andreas Buening, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Soren A, 2002/10/15
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Bernd Jendrissek, 2002/10/15
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Soren A, 2002/10/14