Re: [9fans] There is no fork

[Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net>]

rob’s sam editor for X11 circa 1993 was a revelation for me. 

beautifully written and trivial to port to a dozen different platforms. a salutatory lesson to all.

autotools is horrid, though, fgb’s config script can often get foreign stuff to build. if you want to import code rather than just port it then my mkmk (mkfile generator) can help.

-Steve


> On 12 Feb 2018, at 16:13, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote:
> 
> 2018-02-12 14:05 GMT+01:00 Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>>>> 2018-02-12 2:10 GMT+01:00 Ethan Grammatikidis <eekee57@fastmail.fm>:
>>>> linux-style package managers and bsd-style port trees facilitate and enable coupling.
>>> 
>>> What a package manager really facilitate is version management.
>>> That is when you want to use/update a software at version X that depends on libraries at version Y and Z.
>> 
>> That's the marketing blurb, I've heard it a thousand times before. [...]
>> So, for the last 10-12 years, maybe more, mountains of software have been produced on the assumption that it will be easy to find and install all their dependencies. That's only true for users of big 'distributions' which have lots of people, a large professional team or many contributors, to create and maintain the package tree.
> 
> From a different point of view, the problem is also that the developers,
> using some developing tools (for example the GNU automake and autoconf),
> don't really know what they are using, or, since "GNU is not Unix",
> don't verify that their code is POSIX compliant (and to what level etc.;
> when I began using Unix by discovering Linux, I remember reading a book
> explaining that for C programming, when linking, you will add always 
> the Glib library because "there are probably things you will need in
> it!"...).
> 
> The amount of dependencies of some packages is simply appaling. (One
> example is TeXlive, because using some macros involve using an amount
> not necessarily kwown of "other" macros, for a lot of people it is
> simpler to "take it all" just in order not to "fail"; and this is
> when you need only a part of it that you discover that this "all"
> depends on things that you do not have on your system---a C++
> compiler and so on).
> 
> -- 
>        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
>                     http://www.kergis.com/
>                       http://www.sbfa.fr/
> Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
>