Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

["Filipp Andronov" <filipp.andronov@gmail.com>]

Thanks, this is very similar to my thoughts.

So if i want port some big linux application to Plan9 i need start new
project and copy parts of code from original one. From one side it is
sad, because it's very ugly development model (for example if original
project will be update, i need update my project too, so there are two
"targets" for every update).  On another hand i could concentrate on
new Pla9 techniques and create more powerful analogous of linux
software.

thanks for replies )

2008/2/3, lucio@proxima.alt.za <lucio@proxima.alt.za>:
> > Main trouble in 1 step. Because after that i couldn't post in project
> > mail list, "Hey gays, i have create Plan9 port of your application,
> > please check it out and put in CVS trunk".
>
> There's no cure for this.  The touted portability of the autotools is
> restricted to the GNU environment and the moment you step outside of
> it, this is what occurs.  It's a philosophy that has turned into a
> religion largely by losing its focus or, if you prefer, shifting its
> objective.
>
> Plan 9 becomes the proof thereof, if autotools were as successful as
> claimed, it ought to be trivial to port them to a different platform.
> It isn't, nor is it necessary.  In porting the code for libtiff and
> geotiff to Plan 9 I added a few "mkfiles" to zlib, the jpeg tools,
> png, gd and eventually libtiff and geotiff.  The sum total of these
> mkfiles is probably less than two thousand lines.  But it is
> impossible to feed these back to the developers, because they do not
> fit into their philosophical scheme.
>
> As another example, check out graphviz.  From version 1 to version 2
> (I think) they moved from a custom configurator to the autotools.
> Beside totally losing Plan 9 portability in the bargain, it is my
> impression that they spent more effort on the autotools details than
> in improving graphviz itself.
>
> ++L
>
>