From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Patrick Kelly" To: , "'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs'" <9fans@9fans.net> References: <13426df11003072049h47154430i30ffb529a1d73601@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:13:58 -0500 Message-ID: <000301cabed1$fb78ca00$f26a5e00$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject) Topicbox-Message-UUID: e3f95ea4-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > -----Original Message----- > From: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-bounces@9fans.net] On = Behalf Of lucio@proxima.alt.za > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 11:58 PM > To: 9fans@9fans.net > Subject: Re: [9fans] (no subject) >=20 > >> Agreed wholeheartedly. Thing is, It's autoconf that needs careful > >> redesign: > > > > I don't see any need for autoconf. As one wise person put it to me, > > "things like configure and autoconf just mean you don't know how to > > write portable code". > > > Again, agreed, but reality out there suggests many others are still = believers, no matter how misguided. We were discussing making > available Open Source ports... What your discussing is adding massive complexity. I would prefer to not = have the tools and programs, and retain simplicity, rather than add = outlandish complexity. >=20 > > I still like to point people at plan 9 ports as an example of a > > complex system that gets by without this *conf* nonsense. >=20 > It falls over just enough to be attacked. Otherwise, p9p source would = have been ported back to Plan 9 in its entirety. It's a shame, > really, and with some work it could be fixed, but some of that work is = design work. >=20 > ++L >=20 > PS: I realise that I'm proposing two nearly orthogonal objectives, = sorry that I didn't clarify that sooner.