On May 11, 2005, at 7:52 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
> On May 11, 2005, at 10:32 PM, Stephen Davis wrote:
>> On May 11, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>>> Any ideas why renaming glibtool so that it is used isn't enough?
>> I'm sure that works too but I'd rather not rename my system-supplied
>> binaries if I don't have to.
> You misunderstood. I DID rename that as an experiment and it was NOT
> enough. It did fix some libtool related issues, but the build still
Indeed I did.
>> As you can see, there are many ways to skin the cat. If something
>> doesn't build straight out of the box (e.g. ./configure), then lots
>> of people just whack on stuff until it works. I know I do.
> I haven't got THAT much free time. Quite frankly, if it doesn't work
> "straight out of the box" it's broken, and just because it's open
> source doesn't mean it's MY job to fix it.
Yes and no. OSes change too and a configure setup that works on one
version of the OS might break on another (see previous email about neon
on panther vs. tiger). It takes time for the developers to track these
changes and often it is up to the interested users of a given platform
to take the time to figure this stuff out and feed it back to the
For example, the fine folks at Metissian have taken the time to build
what I think you might be looking for (an OS X install package w/
>> Cem and I obviously used different approaches to solve the problem
>> and both are valid depending on what you need. If you don't need
>> shared libaries, then turn 'em off. If you want SSL, add
>> "--with-ssl". It's just the magic and pain that is autoconf. :-)
> I agree with the part about "pain" :)
> To be honest I find the entire process of "./configure" utterly
> ridiculous. For example: It checks for things like stdlib.h - if you
> have a C compiler that doesn't have this file you have much bigger
> problems than compiling subversion. It checks for fortran compilers -
> why? subversion is written in C. I could go on, but the point is that
> the massive amount of "checking" just goes to show that there is
> something so fundamentally wrong with the entire process that it just
> makes me sad.
As grotesque and incomprehensible as I find autoconf, it is a marvelous
tool for developers to port to platforms they would have no other
chance of supporting.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu May 12 09:13:17 2005