headers
Ruben Safir | 2 Oct 06:16

[ruben <at> mrbrklyn.com: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?]


http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Writing-Autoconf-Input

Next: Autoconf Language, Up: Writing Autoconf Input
3.1.1 A Shell Script Compiler

Just as for any other computer language, in order to properly program
configure.ac in Autoconf you must understand what problem the language
tries to address and how it does so.

The problem Autoconf addresses is that the world is a mess. After
all,....

Ruben

--

-- 
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software

So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world  - RI Safir 1998

http://fairuse.nylxs.com  DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we
need the ability to participate in our own society."

"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Teh Entar-Nick | 2 Oct 11:40

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

Ruben Safir:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Writing-Autoconf-Input
> > The problem Autoconf addresses is that the world is a mess. After
> > all,....

The sad thing is that the world is nowhere near as messy as the one
Autoconf was designed for.  We no longer need a system that will spit
out build scripts that work on Apollo workstations, Ultrix, and 2.11BSD.
We can now at *least* count on POSIX shells being available, and awk,
and so on.

Unfortunately, all proposed replacements have either been vapor or
crack.  We're stuck with m4 macros that spit out
lowest-fucking-ever-common-denominator bourne shell subsets.

--

-- 
How do you get mailings?... from the lists             Nick Moffitt
1. suspects                                           nick <at> zork.net
2. elbows
                -- Don Saklad
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ruben Safir | 2 Oct 18:10

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:40:29AM +0100, Teh Entar-Nick wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Writing-Autoconf-Input
> > > The problem Autoconf addresses is that the world is a mess. After
> > > all,....
> 
> The sad thing is that the world is nowhere near as messy as the one
> Autoconf was designed for.  We no longer need a system that will spit
> out build scripts that work on Apollo workstations, Ultrix, and 2.11BSD.
> We can now at *least* count on POSIX shells being available, and awk,
> and so on.
> 
> Unfortunately, all proposed replacements have either been vapor or
> crack.  We're stuck with m4 macros that spit out
> lowest-fucking-ever-common-denominator bourne shell subsets.
> 

You seem to have written a decent program in garnome for the gnome
people.  I was very impressed until the very end when it failed to
compile the new versions of gnome on my aging distro.  It was still very
impressive.

Ruben
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Teh Entar-Nick | 2 Oct 18:38

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

Ruben Safir:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:40:29AM +0100, Teh Entar-Nick wrote:
> > The sad thing is that the world is nowhere near as messy as the one
> > Autoconf was designed for.  We no longer need a system that will
> > spit out build scripts that work on Apollo workstations, Ultrix, and
> > 2.11BSD.
[..]
> You seem to have written a decent program in garnome for the gnome
> people.  I was very impressed until the very end when it failed to
> compile the new versions of gnome on my aging distro.  It was still
> very impressive.

I wrote GAR for the LNX-BBC, and the GNOME folks maintain GARNOME, which
is a GAR tree with the latest testing-needed GNOME code.  GAR does not
replace Autoconf, and in fact relies on all the GNOME software having
already been set up using autoconf/automake/etc.  GAR is more like
"apt-get source --compile" or portage on the build-tools hierarchy.

--

-- 
Though the great song return no more                  Nick Moffitt
There's keen delight in what we have:                nick <at> zork.net
The rattle of pebbles on the shore
Under the receding wave.  -- W. B. Yeats
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ruben Safir | 2 Oct 18:43

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 05:38:17PM +0100, Teh Entar-Nick wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:40:29AM +0100, Teh Entar-Nick wrote:
> > > The sad thing is that the world is nowhere near as messy as the one
> > > Autoconf was designed for.  We no longer need a system that will
> > > spit out build scripts that work on Apollo workstations, Ultrix, and
> > > 2.11BSD.
> [..]
> > You seem to have written a decent program in garnome for the gnome
> > people.  I was very impressed until the very end when it failed to
> > compile the new versions of gnome on my aging distro.  It was still
> > very impressive.
> 
> I wrote GAR for the LNX-BBC, and the GNOME folks maintain GARNOME, which
> is a GAR tree with the latest testing-needed GNOME code.  GAR does not
> replace Autoconf, and in fact relies on all the GNOME software having
> already been set up using autoconf/automake/etc.  GAR is more like
> "apt-get source --compile" or portage on the build-tools hierarchy.
> 

Well, it was still impressive and I was looking for an excuse to tell
you so,

the fact that the gnome project doesn't keep all their peices in order
no longer suprises me.

You have to be a Stallman-like coder in C to install the gnome project.

Ruben
> --
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bob Bernstein | 2 Oct 20:43

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:

> Well, it was still impressive and I was looking for an excuse to
> tell you so,

Nick: Say "thank you" to Ruben.

--

-- 
Bob Bernstein
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ben Finney | 2 Oct 21:17

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

Bob Bernstein <rs <at> bernstein.providence.ri.us> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Ruben Safir wrote:
> 
> > Well, it was still impressive and I was looking for an excuse to
> > tell you so,
> 
> Nick: Say "thank you" to Ruben.

You are Garth Algar and I claim my five pounds.

--

-- 
 \        “This sentence contradicts itself — no actually it doesn't.” |
  `\                                               —Douglas Hofstadter |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

_______________________________________________
linux-elitists mailing list
linux-elitists <at> zgp.org
http://allium.zgp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bob Bernstein | 2 Oct 21:25

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:17:20AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:

> You are Garth Algar and I claim my five pounds.

If this is a medical emergency, hang up and dial 911 (or, its
Aussie equivalent). 

A. Sentence B is true.
B. Sentence A is false.

--

-- 
Bob Bernstein   

  IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
  addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
  confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons
  with no sense of humor or irrational metaphysical beliefs.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
James Morris | 3 Oct 00:24

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Bob Bernstein wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:17:20AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> > You are Garth Algar and I claim my five pounds.
> 
> If this is a medical emergency, hang up and dial 911 (or, its
> Aussie equivalent). 

That'd be 119.

- James
--

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris <at> namei.org>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Palmer | 3 Oct 00:39
Favicon

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 08:24:33AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Bob Bernstein wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 05:17:20AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > 
> > > You are Garth Algar and I claim my five pounds.
> > 
> > If this is a medical emergency, hang up and dial 911 (or, its
> > Aussie equivalent). 
> 
> That'd be 119.

611, actually.  We're upside down, not backwards.

- Matt
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Shlomi Fish | 20 Oct 14:54
Gravatar

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Thursday 02 October 2008, Teh Entar-Nick wrote:
> Ruben Safir:
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Writing-Autocon
> >f-Input
> >
> > > The problem Autoconf addresses is that the world is a mess. After
> > > all,....
>
> The sad thing is that the world is nowhere near as messy as the one
> Autoconf was designed for.  We no longer need a system that will spit
> out build scripts that work on Apollo workstations, Ultrix, and 2.11BSD.
> We can now at *least* count on POSIX shells being available, and awk,
> and so on.
>
> Unfortunately, all proposed replacements have either been vapor or
> crack.  

I've been very happy with CMake ( http://www.cmake.org/ ) so far. It's not 
vapourware because it's already at version 2.6.2 and is very usable. And from 
my impression, it's not "crack" because it works very well.

Here are links to my reviews on CMake:

* http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-il <at> cs.huji.ac.il/msg53026.html

* http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/4979

* http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/4983

> We're stuck with m4 macros that spit out
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Adam Sampson | 20 Oct 16:25
Favicon

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

Shlomi Fish <shlomif <at> iglu.org.il> writes:

> And from my impression, it's not "crack" because it works very well.

From a packager's perspective, CMake is the only automake replacement
I've seen that's even vaguely credible in terms of making it possible to
install and package software built with it -- so yeah, I guess it gets
my vote too. I wish the syntax weren't so ugly, though.

--

-- 
Adam Sampson <ats <at> offog.org>                         <http://offog.org/>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brian | 20 Oct 17:03

Re: Is this not the funniest documentation you ever read?

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Adam Sampson <ats <at> offog.org> wrote:
> Shlomi Fish <shlomif <at> iglu.org.il> writes:
>
>> And from my impression, it's not "crack" because it works very well.
>
> From a packager's perspective, CMake is the only automake replacement
> I've seen that's even vaguely credible in terms of making it possible to
> install and package software built with it -- so yeah, I guess it gets
> my vote too. I wish the syntax weren't so ugly, though.

There's a steep learning curve to it, but it's more than vaguely
credible. We've moved all server and client components of Second Life
[1] over to cmake, and we have no regrets. We did run into a couple
cmake limitations along the way, but the cmake devs (specifically Bill
Hoffman at Kitware [2]) were incredibly responsive in both adding
wanted features to cmake, and in pointing out what we'd done wrong
ourselves. Bill even logged on to Second Life to hold a conference
with some of our outside contributors.

We now support many development platforms on each of Linux, Windows
and OS X with a single set of configuration files. Of note, cmake
generates for IDEs in addition to traditional makefiles, which is a
huge plus as we have many Mac and Windows developers on the project,
inside the Lab and out. For that matter, KDevelop and Eclipse even
start to look attractive when you don't have to maintain your own
project files anymore.

[1] http://secondlife.com/
[2] http://www.kitware.com/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane