[TUHS] Re: Building programs (Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register

["Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1692 bytes --]

At Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:49:34 +1000, Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: [TUHS] Re: Building programs (Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register
>
> So,
> to what extent is the complexity of
> autoconf _needed_ nowadays?

For xz in particular Autoconf is _probably_ not necessary, but I haven't
examined it in detail.

For a vast amount of application C code and libraries no build-time
configuration beyond what's provided by the system headers and the C
compiler is necessary.  This is especially true if the code is designed
to require a slightly "modern" version of C, such as iso9899:1999
(perhaps with GNU CC extensions).

There are however some things in more systems level programs and
libraries that are more difficult to handle even with well written code,
but compared to the number of tests offered by the likes of Autoconf,
well those things are actually very few.

One thing that Autoconf gets used for, but for which it is not really
necessary, is for choosing build-time options.  Indeed its feature set
for doing so is complex and error-prone to use!  Too much weird mixing
of shell scripts and M4 macros, with all the quoting nightmare this
brings.  Just try to read XZ's configure.ac!  A simple declarative
configuration file, such as a Makefile fragment, is sufficient.

When you wander into the realm of non-C code things might also be a bit
more complex, unless of course it's Go code, where this problem simply
doesn't exist in the first place.

--
					Greg A. Woods <gwoods@acm.org>

Kelowna, BC     +1 250 762-7675           RoboHack <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>     Avoncote Farms <woods@avoncote.ca>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP Digital Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]