Rob Landley wrote: > On Friday 16 January 2009 08:54:42 Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:11:09 CST, Rob Landley said: > > > P.S. I still hope autoconf dies off and the world wakes up and moves > > > away from that. And from makefiles for that matter. But in the > > > meantime, I can work around it with enough effort. > > > > What do you propose autoconf and makefiles get replaced by? > > I've never built pidgin from source, but I've got the output of the binutils > build in a log file. > How many of these tests are actually necessary on an Linux system: None, but then it's not a Linux-only program that you're compiling. (Nor is it Linux-in-2009-only). If you _know_ you're running on Linux from a particular era, you can provide a config.cache file with the correct answers already filled in. I agree that Autoconf sucks (I've written enough sucking Autoconf macros myself, I hate it), but the tough part is providing a suitable replacement when you still want portable source code. > It just goes on and on and on like this. Tests like "checking > whether byte ordering is bigendian... no" means "Either I didn't > know endian.h existed, or I don't trust it to be there". How about > the long stretches checking for the existence of header files > specified by posix? You seem to be arguing for "let's make all our programs Linux-specific (and Glibc-specific in many cases)". Given all the problems you've seen with cross-compiling, let alone compiling for different OS platforms, that seems a little odd. -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
