3 ms·

libtool and autoconf are messy partial solutions to problems created by writing non-portable code. This is an aspect of the bazaar model, where reasonable stand

by quesera 12y ago

libtool and autoconf are messy partial solutions to problems created by writing non-portable code. This is an aspect of the bazaar model, where reasonable standards (e.g. POSIX) are sometimes ignored in favor of novelty or minimal adequacy. The bazaar model embraces the mess, believing that something spectacular will emerge. The cathedral model argues that coherence produces better results. Both can point to successes. phk is arguing that the open source community has lost more than it has gained from accepting the bazaar as the one true way. Even in the last ten years, where has the innovation in operating systems come from? The CatB essay predates the book, and the idea predates UNIX.

makomk 12y ago
Any non-trivial code is non-portable between Unix systems in practice. No system implements all of POSIX, even when they do they often disagree on how parts of it should be implemented, and some software needs features that simply aren't in POSIX. (For example, high-performance webservers need a better way of polling for events than select/poll, and that's platform-specific.) As for libtool, anything that deals with shared libraries is inherently non-portable. The file extension they're created with and the compiler and linker flags to create them are entirely platform specific - POSIX won't help you there. (Also, a lot of libtool's hairyness exists because some older proprietary Unix systems don't support shared library dependencies.) If you're only planning on supporting open source OSes you don't actually need libtool though - their native toolchains are either the GNU one or something compatible with it, and include most of its functionality natively.
- regularfry 12y ago
  And this is because there is nobody with authority to force the right solution. Compare POSIX to the Java spec: without Sun forcing coherence, "write once, run anywhere" would have died very early on, and we'd be saying the same thing about Java as you've just said about POSIX.
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    Curious though, what do you use: maven or ant?
    - regularfry 12y ago
      Neither.
- quesera 12y ago
  > webservers need a better way of polling for events than select/poll, and that's platform-specific. POSIX was just an example, and it is possible to write portable code using #ifdef. But you have to have a goal of writing portable code. Re: libtool, most of the reason it's ever necessary is because of the historical rush and the incompatibilities created. Again, a single command line switch could handle that. Still, plenty of software which has clearly only ever been built for Linux requires libtool. It's just the way things are done, just like autoconf. It works, poorly, inefficiently, fragile-ly -- and to most, mysteriously. Appreciation for autoconf and libtool depends on one's position on the defeatism-pragmatism-idealism spectrum.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    "POSIX was just an example, and it is possible to write portable code using #ifdef.." Yes, two ways. One way uses autoconf (and tests each individual option to see which branch of the ifdef to use) and the other uses Imake (and has a big, continuously maintained database of which option to use on each system).

by quesera 12y ago

makomk 12y ago

Any non-trivial code is non-portable between Unix systems in practice. No system implements all of POSIX, even when they do they often disagree on how parts of it should be implemented, and some software needs features that simply aren't in POSIX. (For example, high-performance webservers need a better way of polling for events than select/poll, and that's platform-specific.) As for libtool, anything that deals with shared libraries is inherently non-portable. The file extension they're created with and the compiler and linker flags to create them are entirely platform specific - POSIX won't help you there. (Also, a lot of libtool's hairyness exists because some older proprietary Unix systems don't support shared library dependencies.) If you're only planning on supporting open source OSes you don't actually need libtool though - their native toolchains are either the GNU one or something compatible with it, and include most of its functionality natively.

regularfry 12y ago
And this is because there is nobody with authority to force the right solution. Compare POSIX to the Java spec: without Sun forcing coherence, "write once, run anywhere" would have died very early on, and we'd be saying the same thing about Java as you've just said about POSIX.
- chris_wot 12y ago
  Curious though, what do you use: maven or ant?
  - regularfry 12y ago
    Neither.
quesera 12y ago
> webservers need a better way of polling for events than select/poll, and that's platform-specific. POSIX was just an example, and it is possible to write portable code using #ifdef. But you have to have a goal of writing portable code. Re: libtool, most of the reason it's ever necessary is because of the historical rush and the incompatibilities created. Again, a single command line switch could handle that. Still, plenty of software which has clearly only ever been built for Linux requires libtool. It's just the way things are done, just like autoconf. It works, poorly, inefficiently, fragile-ly -- and to most, mysteriously. Appreciation for autoconf and libtool depends on one's position on the defeatism-pragmatism-idealism spectrum.
- mcguire 12y ago
  "POSIX was just an example, and it is possible to write portable code using #ifdef.." Yes, two ways. One way uses autoconf (and tests each individual option to see which branch of the ifdef to use) and the other uses Imake (and has a big, continuously maintained database of which option to use on each system).