[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: installable gnulib library

From: Bruce Korb
Subject: Re: installable gnulib library
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:33:12 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20071114)

Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I think some folks won't buy into it because they don't want another dependency
for their projects.  (I think that was the main objection to my
proposal for that long-ago "contest".

Really?  I thought the main objection was that writing the glue layer would
take a man-decade of effort.

It's been too long for me to remember precisely.   I had figured to leverage
off of the current code and and morph it into something more easily used.

Shortly thereafter, the gnulib project started (tho I didn't hear of it until
a few years ago), and quite a few hands and the best part of a decade later,
we've almost got it.  I guess the man-decade went into it.  :)

The thing that struck me a few days ago was that gnulib actually provides
all the code that such a shim would need, only it has to be copied piece-meal into the packages that want to take advantage of it as it stands. Although it does that very well.

Well enough that it was pointed out that you can almost automate the process.
If we can script the whole process, then life would be fairly easy.
One thing that seems clear, projects would need to specify the minimum
version.  The "incompatible changes" part would be a bit of an issue tho.

Outside of the autotool and GNU communities, the vast majority of people I
encounter strongly dislike the difficulty of using autotools in client
packages, and the megabyte or two of shell scripts and m4 macros that every
GNU package seems to carry around with it.  Wouldn't it be great if we only
had to run that stuff *once* (when installing gnulib) and every other
command-line package that paid attention could remove all of their autotools glue?


 Can't seem to put together the right Google search to
dredge it up again...)

I'm not sure it's still around in that form any more :)

I was expecting a hit on the wayback machine.  I did see it there
several years ago.  Obviously, I've not looked since.

Anyway, at least _I'd_ like to see it.  :-D

And no one is telling me I'm an idiot yet... looks like a green light to me :D

Cool.  Cheers - Bruce

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]