# eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx / 2022-02-14 19:53:17 -0800: > On 2/14/22 19:45, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > how portable is xargs ? > > It can be a porting problem, unfortunately. There are several corner > cases that various implementations don't get right. I expect this is why > the GNU Coding Standards exclude xargs from the list of programs that > 'configure' and Makefile rules can use. It seems that current circumstances notwithstanding, this project has no way to recognize when a workaround is no longer necessary. In other words, it may well be past many such transitions already. I'm reminded of the herd of monkeys beating up any one of them who reached for the banana even though none of them knew what was wrong with it. Back when I was involved with FreeBSD ports (~ 4.7 - 6.2), the extreme[*] complexity of autotools was the greater hindrance to porting -- actual incompatibilities of the underlying environment were a distant second (IMO - I speak for now one else). [*] It was disproportional to the achievements - certainly, given the complexity present in the tools and leaking into their interfaces, building and installing autotools-using code shouldn't have required so much constant effort. I didn't mean to whine here, the two paragraps above are meant as an anecdote in support of another take on the situation. I've only seen the last twenty years, and am an external observer to anything FSF or GNU, but it seems to me that: * the OS ecosystem has fewer species than it had when autotools were conceived * it would be perfectly fine for autotools maintainers to say "if you insist on running SunOS 2, HPUX 10 or similar, feel free to put in the work or the funds" * same for minority/fringe FOSS environments: the message could and IMO should be "you can deviate if you take on the cost" These things came across my mind when I read the thread, I'm probably missing or a vital angle or two, or maybe just valuing them differently. Thanks for reading and back to lurking, -- roman
