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

For me, precomputing an environment is the same as a wysiwyg editor: what you see is all you get. If it works for you, and the environment that's inferred from predefined CPP symbols is correct, then it's an easy solution. When it's not, and for me it often wasn't, it's nothing but pain and suffering and saying MF all the time (also not Make File).... I was serious when I've said I've had more positive cmake experiences (which haven't been all that impressive: I'm more impressed with meson in this space, for example) than I ever had with IMakefiles, imake, xmkmf, etc... But It's also clear that different people have lived through different hassles, and I respect that... I've noticed too that we're relatively homogeneous these days: Everybody is a Linux box or Windows Box or MacOS, except for a few weird people on the fringes (like me). It's a lot easier to get things right enough w/o autotools, scons, meson, etc than it was in The Bad Old Days of the Unix Wars and the Innovation Famine that followed from the late 80s to the mid 2000s.... In that environment, there's one of two reactions: Test Everything or Least Common Denominator. And we've seen both represented in this thread. As well as the 'There's so few environments, can't you precompute them all?' sentiment from newbies that never bloodied their knuckles with some of the less like Research Unix machines out there like AIX and HP/UX... Or worse, Eunice... Warner On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 12:42 PM Adam Thornton <athornton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Someone clearly never used imake... > > > There's a reason that the xmkmf command ends in the two letters it does, > and I'm never going to believe it's "make file". > > Adam > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 11:34 AM Greg A. Woods <woods(a)robohack.ca> wrote: > >> At Thu, 20 Jun 2024 01:01:01 -0400, Scot Jenkins via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> >> wrote: >> Subject: [TUHS] Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix >> philosophy' The Register >> > >> > "Greg A. Woods" <woods(a)robohack.ca> wrote: >> > >> > > I will not ever allow cmake to run, or even exist, on the machines I >> > > control... >> > >> > I'm not a fan of cmake either. >> > >> > How do you deal with software that only builds with cmake (or meson, >> > scons, ... whatever the developer decided to use as the build tool)? >> > What alternatives exist short of reimplementing the build process in >> > a standard makefile by hand, which is obviously very time consuming, >> > error prone, and will probably break the next time you want to update >> > a given package? >> >> The alternative _is_ to reimplement the build process. >> >> For example, see: >> >> https://github.com/robohack/yajl/ >> >> This example is a far more comprehensive rewrite than is usually >> necessary as I wanted a complete and portable example that could be used >> as the basis for further projects. >> >> An example of a much simpler reimplementation: >> >> >> http://cvsweb.NetBSD.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/external/mit/ctwm/bin/ctwm/Makefile… >> >> -- >> 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> >> >