From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA82253B6 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:06:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F70D43CDB; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 02:06:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945F243CD8 for ; Sat, 22 Jun 2024 02:06:23 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ebec2f11b7so23523891fa.2 for ; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:06:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1718985981; x=1719590781; darn=tuhs.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ppF8EkhjbmOUByGIs7xUtnAbipqDEYkgEKPUGtVgsUw=; b=bvQ9BXVuO91RtD4E4vQL6zNWT5x0swmBTSiGaqHWJwX5sWjt4hXRUuBUdBRgm/cL6a AqBNmghZz26tPwC1m5ep9z+u4WNV1JK6juBWPs93wowirYJEDTzVbIrHcVS2o8/RPuzS DwCI09A12QzDttJ/zscC6s8mXtDFVWZ6BqDUKOhK0l9wHw1XuVZSgWKKX8RUD9P7B6Ek /DZnq4ue1ulROf5afNAeD0eVpklEb+/S2UiWNls2yc9yNbhqQ3sfzBTT9ssLsBU11gY+ Wtr5DfVyC4zQCJl3+D74t4DeEH+1og4GlMtJh6onGRZi30uUKKHJtL/Rc0Ap7FrwOsjj 3eZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718985981; x=1719590781; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ppF8EkhjbmOUByGIs7xUtnAbipqDEYkgEKPUGtVgsUw=; b=TE4ZglZqtSIM7fk454LKDPATMhSAe/7tyoHBOGbRWoyTnjObWHEKbAAKAym6815VKh AwarrzNN4D+3bVHPnIqNtFuUKQHi9e05V+TE6uOFFQc2oqUnZv48An59HCC5hOnd7IzZ d7JQiMQo+gdQLAAiY2Yw9hFAfe37Czak4SN0wTjindJBhhoNiSqARyxj+M/e1LYbEStR K5gJmztrLqX5838VZHHSRt/h0Djz6GjpzuAmRM2rvdTM9lFHYaX60TcTY2k9Jc94YUYb 51tsNkyxOGCtOqD+9deWHjL9TahCnWX/7llcKSbrPFlzSn3hoMJ+idCe6qNSNSltbPIu 60BQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyC2t7jcav/opPS8o7aRzIuqvn5rU2RMjmEo5aRddRwPFgcgkn7 /PGamXp53L5BYb5e6r9lEtHYKlR6+OR9zczuPwTZdiwmd0xcC8NhPIiLLZIKOvjXJDe6EzMwiMD h/xyX2Zx2y7oyXzmBeOYi84YGVmYBCA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE52pZyzfpIEcOFYyanRuq0kXnNtC94Mg6slV126dmDI6IgAym31hXN+utGuwPTfXMHpKDSCrFzhOVC50tSEJU= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:86c5:0:b0:2ec:4fe0:38bc with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2ec4fe0396cmr13308071fa.35.1718985980867; Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:06:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87iky84c23.fsf@gmail.com> <20240617012531.GE12821@mcvoy.com> <0e6792ed-65b0-e2e1-8159-6426a7f15a8d@riddermarkfarm.ca> <202406200501.45K5118a028500@sdf.org> <69f23275-0853-47ac-8c22-9be6fedff13c@case.edu> In-Reply-To: <69f23275-0853-47ac-8c22-9be6fedff13c@case.edu> From: Henry Bent Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:06:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c37e2d061b689c77" Message-ID-Hash: BUJHD2E33REBTOKWLH46TRBRR3ZRPN3H X-Message-ID-Hash: BUJHD2E33REBTOKWLH46TRBRR3ZRPN3H X-MailFrom: henry.r.bent@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000c37e2d061b689c77 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 11:47, Chet Ramey via TUHS wrote: > On 6/20/24 4:12 PM, ron minnich wrote: > > > Personally, the autoconfig process does not fill me with confidence, and > it > > was recently responsible for a very serious security problem. And, > > autoconfig doesn't work: I've lost track of how many times autoconf has > > failed for me. In general, in my experience, autoconf makes for less > > portability, not more. > > I'd be interested in some examples of this. I've had pretty decent success > with autoconf-based portability. > I think it's important to make a distinction between autotools not working and the actual software distribution not being buildable. For example, I've recently been working with Ultrix V4.5. Most configure scripts are able to complete successfully with ksh or sh5, so I don't absolutely need bash (even though I do have it and use it). The difficulties begin when trying to compile the actual code; for example, Ultrix doesn't have strdup(). Almost every autotools-based package I've used doesn't bother checking if I have strdup() and/or providing a replacement. This isn't the fault of autotools, this is the fault of the code author not considering whether a lack of strdup() is a possibility. The end result, however, is the same - I don't have a buildable release as-is. I know that Ultrix is incredibly out of date, but I use it to illustrate that while there are corner cases that autotools won't catch, that isn't the fault of autotools. It would be no different with cmake or imake or meson or handwritten makefiles or anything else - if the software author doesn't bother checking for and coding around the corner case that comes up on your particular system, you're stuck unless you can fix the code. -Henry --000000000000c37e2d061b689c77 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 11:47, Chet Ramey = via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:<= /div>
On 6/20/24 4:12 PM, ron minnich wrote:

> Personally, the autoconfig process does not fill me with confidence, a= nd it
> was recently responsible for a very serious security problem.=C2=A0And= ,
> autoconfig doesn't work: I've lost track of how many times aut= oconf has
> failed for me. In general, in my experience, autoconf makes for less <= br> > portability, not more.

I'd be interested in some examples of this. I've had pretty decent = success
with autoconf-based portability.

I thin= k it's important to make a distinction between autotools not working an= d=C2=A0 the actual software distribution not being buildable.=C2=A0=C2=A0

For example, I've recently been working with Ul= trix V4.5.=C2=A0 Most configure scripts are able to complete successfully w= ith ksh or sh5, so I don't absolutely need bash (even though I do have = it and use it).=C2=A0 The difficulties begin when trying to compile the act= ual code; for example, Ultrix doesn't have strdup().=C2=A0 Almost every= autotools-based package I've used doesn't bother checking if I hav= e strdup() and/or providing a replacement.=C2=A0 This isn't the fault o= f autotools, this is the fault of the code author not considering whether a= lack of strdup() is a possibility.=C2=A0 The end result, however, is the s= ame - I don't have a buildable release as-is.

= I know that Ultrix is incredibly out of date, but I use it to illustrate th= at while there are corner cases that autotools won't catch, that isn= 9;t the fault of autotools.=C2=A0 It would be no different with cmake or im= ake or meson or handwritten makefiles or anything else - if the software au= thor doesn't bother checking for and coding around the corner case that= comes up on your particular system, you're stuck unless you can fix th= e code.

-Henry
--000000000000c37e2d061b689c77--