From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <6e35c0620605081410j29c99b28n25bdf7843295d8f0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 14:10:19 -0700 From: "Jack Johnson" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive In-Reply-To: <283f5df10605081352u1e93ff93rd6d6bed6125ce890@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <283f5df10605080804y56b0124ence29c4bd6cfbc3cb@mail.gmail.com> <090054c961a5151cabe817d1a3f724d6@terzarima.net> <283f5df10605081352u1e93ff93rd6d6bed6125ce890@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4f6a21f0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 5/8/06, LiteStar numnums wrote: > seems. So for the half > our conformity test/configuration, it still wouldn't actually tell me wha= t > was really missing, which was > fun because it kept passing the thread test sections... So, it sounds like autoconf may function as intended but perhaps the person who wrote the test needs some help? Given that progress is likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, what kind of system or environment do you see that has potential to wean people from autoconf with as minimal hassle as possible? If I'm engrossed in autoconf hell for whatever reason -- say I'm the Firefox build maintainer, for instance -- what does the path out look like? -Jack