Subject: Re: safe make replace?
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <tech-pkg@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Luke Mewburn <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/31/2005 09:19:43
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:18:56PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
  | Like I said, the X11 Imake rules have almost got it right (except for
  | the fact that they come along with all the other Imake baggage).

I disagree.

Imake might be a good idea in theory, yet it sucks in practice,
even in its primary user (X11).

The X11 use of Imake is suboptimal.  There is serious inconsistency
in how macros are provided and used, let alone unnecessary
functionality replication.  The compiler/tool abstractions are not
implemented in a manner that supports cross-compiling, let alone
unprivileged builds from read-only source trees.

It's clear to me that various people working on X11 over the years
didn't fully understand what existed so reinvented the wheel in

I made these observations this whilst I was implementing the src/x11
reachover framework as a means to easily solve NetBSD's requirements
of ``read-only unprivileged cross builds''.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)