Re: [9fans] Standalone unix port of the original rc shell

["Anselm R. Garbe" <garbeam@gmail.com>]

On 8/10/05, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> I wonder if the objections to how p9p builds is the now-common syndrome
> of viewing the world through Linux and/or GNU eyes only. I see this
> frequently -- packages modified to be better on linux, or under some
> wacky GNU build environment, which then break on other OSes.

Nah, that was not my point, then we misunderstood each other. I don't
like the GNU way as well. My impression can be summed up to "why using
shell scripts, make and mk - instead of make and mk" - which means
getting rid of shell scripts at first glance seemed me to make it
simplier. But as mentioned I understand the sense of 9* shell scripts.

> It's the new definition of portable -- "It builds fine on all versions
> of gentoo I've tried, but only with kernel 2.6.9".
> 
> p9p is remarkable to me in that it builds on anything, without automake,
> configure, autoconfig, dev-wrappers, and that other horrible stuff. You
> just type make. What a concept!
> 
> GNU has somehow managed to create a "portability environment" which is
> far less portable and and far less convenient than p9p, but also about
> 100 times harder to deal with. NOT progress. There's a lesson in p9p
> that I wish the GNU world would heed.

Tell that the GNU morons, I'm hopefully far away from them... I prefer
one system, wether make or mk doesn't matters and try to reduce all
additional dependencies when possible. Maybe the GNU world prefers
shell scripts+m4+autoconf+automake+Make+ant+wtf to build their
software, because they want to notice the build process at a speed
level with todays computers they can follow (./configure == for each
line; perform line; sleep 2s; continue;)...

Regards,
-- 
  Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361