-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:19:23PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > Bernd Jendrissek <berndfoobar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I am wondering how widespread the use of the autotools is - particularly > > among projects that are *not* GNU or other Free Software, or even "Open > > Source" but not-quite Free. IOW how many in-house completely locked-up > > proprietary packages use them? > > > > It's probably a bit hard to tell, these packages being uber-secret and > > all. Any (gu)estimates? Oops, I suppose it was a bit rude not to mention that *I* have autoconfiscated this retail card payments server thingie that my employer uses to make money. > I use it in all my Free software packages. I also use it at work, for > non-free commercial stuff. > > TBH, a lot of commercial software has archaic build processes, since Or none at all! Or an ad-hoc process, if you can call that a process. > there's not the same requirement for repeated building of source on > multiple platforms--there's one build and the binaries are > distributed. Therefore, on DOS many projects are built by hand or > with batch files and on UNIX, a plain Makefile or shell script will Then the only guy who knows how it all works leaves, and the money-spinner turns into a cash cow in a death spiral as the product gets ever more out-of-date. > often do. I'd guess it's used, but far, far less than for Free > software. That's the conclusing I'm drawing. > Free software, being distributed primarily as source, must build > conveniently and quickly on any user's system. That's the main reason > for using autoconf (and automake etc.). Personally, I've spent > several hundred hours working on the gimp-print build infrastructure > alone. For the stuff I do for work, the company doesn't care how it > builds as long as they can supply a set of binaries to customers. In > addition, commercial pressures mean that there simply isn't time to > devote to such things--which is just one reason why Free software is > so oftern of much better quality. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ While I find it true, (not accusing anyone!) I don't think we should become complacent. As Free Software matures, it too is in danger of accreting cruft and misfeatures and (gasp!) bugs. Although I must say, that the super-mature GNU tools (coreutils, GCC, etc.) have been bulletproof enough for my uses. (Still would like to see an arbitrary code execution eXpl017 for GCC.) Thanks for everyone's replies! bernd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE/dBH8/FmLrNfLpjMRAiWpAJ99xkQHEWtTyf6p6ioFScfItDqctACfYjxo V/a4+gq8AZHUJr1Hv+gNqSA= =uans -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
