Re: [9fans] Silly porting fun

[Kris Van Hees <kvanhees@quarterleaf.com>]

In article <200007130836.EAA20995@cse.psu.edu>, forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>>I sometimes think so too and yet...it works so very very well and
>>>there is just so much software that uses it.  I don't think I've ever
>>>seen a configure script fail in a released program. 
>
>i have, frequently, on Unix systems, not Plan 9.

One example is trying to compile CVS (ironically, since it already got ported
to Plan9 without much trouble - and not using configure) on Solaris 7.  At
least on all Solaris 7 machines I tried it detects that GSSAPI is available,
and then during the compilation it complains because the libraries are not
there.  I believe it must be a case of Sun shipping the C include files but
not the library or something.

Anyway, it indicates how fragile configure is, even on one of the very common
Unix flavours.  Another thing I truly *hate* about configure is that its small
components like the infamous config.guess script to create a identifier for the
architecture/platform it runs on cannot be used under non-GPL distribution
terms unless it is bundled with a program that contains a GNU configure script
that was generated with Autoconf.  Quite a ridiculous stand for people that
claim to promote 'free' software, I think.  Anyway, that widely off topic.

What I'd like to see...  mk for Unix :)  Anyone here who has attempted to port
it over (along with rc of course)?

	Kris