3 ms·

Because your average configure.in actually works on platforms the devs haven't tested it on, right? Truth is most autoconf setups are just arbitrary pastiches

Because your average configure.in actually works on platforms the devs haven't tested it on, right? Truth is most autoconf setups are just arbitrary pastiches of other autoconf setups that the devs didn't really understand. Half the time a bunch of the test results aren't even used, or are testing for something that isn't an issue on any platform it's ever going to be compiled on. And when that makefile breaks? At least you have a hope in hell of understanding why it broke. Autoconf breaks? Good luck.

tedunangst 12y ago
1000x this. Nothing is more "entertaining" than watching a configure script run for a full minute, testing for the presence of standard headers like stdio.h (like wtf are you going to do without that?), in order to build a makefile that can then actually compile the project in only four seconds. This is probably also why libtool's configure probes no fewer than 26 different names for the Fortran compiler my system does not have, and then spends another 26 tests to find out if each of these nonexistent Fortran compilers supports the -g option. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257
- crististm 12y ago
  I took my chances at using autotools in 2014. I did this to see for myself if autotools bashing is justified and I can tell you this: If a configure script is that bad, then the project's developers did a poor job using autotools.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    It's hard to believe the problem lies solely with the developers when every project is this bad. For fun, I just downloaded the source for GNU grep. You'd figure they might have some experience. Among the 600 tests configure performs is checking whether mkfifoat is declared without a macro... yes Why? Nowhere in grep is there a single call to mkfifoat. Why does it care? I also liked this: checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes
    - crististm 12y ago
      The downside is that after you make it work there is no incentive/glamor in getting back to clean-up. Thus, not enough people get to have the minimum knowledge to fix things risking whatever worked to stop working. And the work has a bigger risk because you can't actually check on more than a couple of distributions before you ship.

tedunangst 12y ago

1000x this. Nothing is more "entertaining" than watching a configure script run for a full minute, testing for the presence of standard headers like stdio.h (like wtf are you going to do without that?), in order to build a makefile that can then actually compile the project in only four seconds. This is probably also why libtool's configure probes no fewer than 26 different names for the Fortran compiler my system does not have, and then spends another 26 tests to find out if each of these nonexistent Fortran compilers supports the -g option. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2349257

crististm 12y ago
I took my chances at using autotools in 2014. I did this to see for myself if autotools bashing is justified and I can tell you this: If a configure script is that bad, then the project's developers did a poor job using autotools.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  It's hard to believe the problem lies solely with the developers when every project is this bad. For fun, I just downloaded the source for GNU grep. You'd figure they might have some experience. Among the 600 tests configure performs is checking whether mkfifoat is declared without a macro... yes Why? Nowhere in grep is there a single call to mkfifoat. Why does it care? I also liked this: checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes checking for MAP_ANONYMOUS... yes
  - crististm 12y ago
    The downside is that after you make it work there is no incentive/glamor in getting back to clean-up. Thus, not enough people get to have the minimum knowledge to fix things risking whatever worked to stop working. And the work has a bigger risk because you can't actually check on more than a couple of distributions before you ship.