[TUHS] Re: Building programs (Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register

At Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:49:34 +1000, Alexis <flexibeast(a)gmail.com> wrote: Subject: [TUHS] Re: Building programs (Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register For xz in particular Autoconf is _probably_ not necessary, but I haven't examined it in detail. For a vast amount of application C code and libraries no build-time configuration beyond what's provided by the system headers and the C compiler is necessary. This is especially true if the code is designed to require a slightly "modern" version of C, such as iso9899:1999 (perhaps with GNU CC extensions). There are however some things in more systems level programs and libraries that are more difficult to handle even with well written code, but compared to the number of tests offered by the likes of Autoconf, well those things are actually very few. One thing that Autoconf gets used for, but for which it is not really necessary, is for choosing build-time options. Indeed its feature set for doing so is complex and error-prone to use! Too much weird mixing of shell scripts and M4 macros, with all the quoting nightmare this brings. Just try to read XZ's configure.ac! A simple declarative configuration file, such as a Makefile fragment, is sufficient. When you wander into the realm of non-C code things might also be a bit more complex, unless of course it's Go code, where this problem simply doesn't exist in the first place. -- Greg A. Woods <gwoods(a)acm.org> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods(a)robohack.ca> Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com> Avoncote Farms <woods(a)avoncote.ca>