Re: AC_MSG_RESULT(patching libtool to fix HIDEOUS BREAKAGE) [was Re:dconf 0.5]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Macks <dmacks netspace org> wrote:

> Well, it's fine if you don't intend to test it on those systems, but others
> certainly are. For example, I manage the gnome suite for Fink, where our
> users can run a fullish gnome desktop environment (I think similar package
> suites are available in MacPorts as well). If dconf is trying to be a part
> of the gnome desktop, I don't think setting up intentional roadblocks to
> portability is a good idea--i.e., it sounds like you're headed towards
> hardcoded potentially non-portable methods.
> Seems like every time someone tries to reinvent a simpler system, they
> either wind up with a buggy mess or something at least as complicated and/or
> less portable than libtool (or at least automake). There are already lots of
> build-system alternatives (I think KDE recently switched to cmake, which
> took years just to be able to build shared libraries properly on OS X).
> You're the developer, it's your time to spend as you please obviously, but
> seems like there are better things to be doing than reinventing some
> already-tested wheels.

I generally share your sentiment, and I don't think autotools are
nearly as bad (or their competitors as feature-complete) as people
make them to be, but I can really sympathize with the desire to kick
libtool. libtool is just bad, and it is actively preventing us from
making the most of our platform.

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