Re: Remove cdrtools
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:53:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> writes:
> > The *real* problem with the whole autotools disaster is that it promotes
> > a braindead idea of how to achieve portability: a #ifdef branch for
> > every different system (or library version, or whatever), strewn
> > throughout the entire codebase. Real portability involves understanding
> > your target systems, learning where the rough edges and corner cases
> > are, and developing proper abstractions to work around them. Oh, and
> > actually learning the standard version of the language (if there is
> > one), and being able to distinguish between "this is what the language
> > says it will do" and "works for me".
> I'm not sure you can really blame autotools for this. In a well-designed
> application with a good portability abstraction layer, the autotools are
> as good as any for providing the input required to create that portability
> layer.
Indeed, the only reason to use autoconf in the first place is if you're
trying to *avoid* platform-specific ifdef mazes. That some authors happen
to do an imperfect job of this isn't something that should be blamed on
autoconf AFAICS.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: