Subject: Re: xpkgwedge vs. USE_X11 vs. ?
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Tim Rightnour <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/31/1998 23:03:43
On 31-Jul-98 Todd Vierling spoke unto us all:
# Anything that _must_ use imake should depend on X, because that's where
# imake is. tcsh has a GNU-style configure system, too. So, if it really
# doesn't use X except for imake, make a Makefile out of a patchfile. 8-)
This isn't of course.. allways the case.. tcsh 6.04 used imake to build, and if
you think about it, it works nicely.. (before autoconf, Imake was really the
only way, and alot of people went with it, to create automated non-X software)
The issue I have, is I don't want tcsh installing into the X tree. And
hardcoding a makefile to get around wierd logic in our pkg tree seems
counterproductive to me. The mechanics are there to automate the build and
make it easy.. why must we complexify the pkg creation process so much?
Having a builder add a few "uses this, uses that" defines is a breeze..
Hardcoding makefiles is a real pain in the @$$ to get right.. look at the way
gnu ended up solving it.. The more arches we get, the more bizzare the
machines, the harder this gets to come up with a makefile that "works
everywhere" We've allready seen what a nightmare elf has been..
What I don't want to end up with here, is a pkg system that is a wonder to
behold, but can't be comprehended by anyone. A system like this is only useful
if people contribute pkgs to it.. if we make it too hard, and throw all the
work onto the builder (patch this, change that, hardcode this, tweak that) then
noone will have the stomache to even try.. let alone get one right..
Tim Rightnour - email@example.com