On Friday 06 July 2007, DervishD wrote: > I really like the spirit of CMake. Of course, it adds a dependency, > but IMHO is much safer to depend on CMake being installed (or Perl, for > that matter) than to depend on a shell. Every shell out there seems to > do things on its own, and apart from dash, which is more or less > standard, the rest of shells do actually violate the standard one way or > another (in fact, configure script include workarounds for at least Bash > and Zsh). careful, you tread into dangerous territory making silly statements like that. by "standard" you probably mean "POSIX standard" which dash too has had plenty of bugs in terms of implementing it properly (and still does). as for the workarounds you allude to, autotools is designed to be portable everywhere which means including workarounds for random bugs in major releases of operating systems. just because autotools lacks workarounds for bugs found in random versions of dash does not make dash magical. there is also the fact that autotools works on systems that predate POSIX or lack shells which support POSIX. and claiming that it's safer to depend on CMake than bash in this Linux world is just plain bogus. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
