[Ecls-list] ASDF revolt
Pascal J. Bourguignon
pjb at informatimago.com
Sun Apr 11 18:28:35 UTC 2010
Daniel Herring <dherring at tentpost.com> writes:
> As an aside, I'm not sold on the value of logical pathnames.
> This resonated with me and my experience in the C/C++/unix world. The GNU
> autotools are dominant not because they are easy to start with; they took
> over because they do the right thing.
Well, I've never been sold on the autotools either, and I'm not alone:
> Configure is a self-contained shell script;
IMO, this is the only positive point of this system. All the rest is
> the packager needs autoconf installed, but the user doesn't.
> Only a decent shell, compiler, and make are presumed to be on the user's
> system. Configure detects the actual system behavior; it doesn't require
> the end user to tell it everything, it doesn't rely on preconfigured
> tables, it fails with logs about what went wrong, and it outputs
> "config.h". Once "configure; make; make install" are finished, the user
> never needs to touch anything from the build framework.
Ok, you mean the packaging of the tool is good. I agree.
We can agree that the user interface matters, but I've been told there
are also more fundamental problems with asdf, so perhaps there's no
point in solving the user interface part?
More information about the ecl-devel