Re: portability as a goal for debian?
Alexey Vyskubov <alexey@pepper.spb.ru> wrote:
>> Portability, like everything, is a compromise. It's extra code to
>> be written and debugged,
>
>Often portability means not extra code but The Right Style of Coding.
>
>> It often reduces clarity of the code,
>
>Often portability means more clear code. But you should understand that
>"Portability" is not "a zillion of #ifdefs" but "the right way of coding".
>Non-portable code often means design flaws.
Is using GNU make, say, really a design flaw? Look through the
portability sections in the info file. Consider how much unnecessary
work it would be to eliminate every use of everything mentioned there,
and how much easier it would be just to port GNU make, given that it can
be built, has been built, and is regularly used on just about every
system in existence anyway.
What's the point of writing all this cool GNU software if we can never
use any of its features? Part of what makes working on Debian such
recovery from my day job is that I don't have to work around broken
features in other operating systems' utilities (well, actually, we use
GNU make at work because most vendor-supplied makes aren't capable
enough). Portability is essential among the systems we support, and we
shouldn't introduce incompatibility just for the sake of it, but when
somebody has thoughtfully implemented something in Debian's base
utilities there isn't much point in polishing away at that wheel just to
make it that little bit rounder.
--
Colin Watson [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: