4 ms·
Which is interesting because most autoconf programs I've seen do the opposite. They have all these defines and then don't use them. Just seems like a waste of t
by Neywiny 2mo ago
Which is interesting because most autoconf programs I've seen do the opposite. They have all these defines and then don't use them. Just seems like a waste of time. Cmake has been better but still sometimes cmake will pass and the code still doesn't build
- wbl 2mo agoAutotools on little endian Linux is the biggest waste of CPU time imaginable.
- irishcoffee 2mo agoAh.. yup.
- bombcar 2mo agoOnce upon a midnight dreary, while I compiled, weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious emerge of GNU more— While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door. “’Tis just automake,” I muttered, “gently checking CPU floor— Only this, and nothing more.” “Automake!” said I, “thing of evil!—automake still, if GNU or devil!— Whether Linus sent, or whether Stallman tossed thee here ashore, Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted— On this home by horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore— Is there—is there caching in Gentoo?—tell me—tell me, I implore!” Quoth automake, “Nevermore.” It would be nice if automake remembered your system in a cache.
- bandrami 2mo agoThere was for a brief period a Middle Path, called libiberty (now mostly subsumed into gnulib). It generated GNU-compatible shim functions for whatever system you happened to be on that translated those calls into the native calls. So you wrote one clean GNU-esque codebase and gnulib patched together essentially a translation layer for it when you built.