Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #15669

Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code

From Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code
Date 2012-01-09 23:20 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <20120109145333.491@kylheku.com> (permalink)
References <9483089.582.1326104763671.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prj1> <lnk4504hip.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2012-01-09, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> writes:
>> I've posted a question regarding autoconf earlier where several people
>> suggested avoiding "autoconf" altogether. I can generalize the
>> suggestion by saying "avoiding" the whole "Autotools"
>> chain.
> [...]
>> Any pointer about the development process will be very helpful. I
>> absolutely hate gnu autotools. If we can avoid it, it will be less
>> pain in the back.
> [...]
>
> One advantage of GNU autotools, from the perspective of a user
> installing software from source, is that they impose a consistent set of
> commands to build and install packages.

This is not an advantage of autotools, because anyone can write a script called
"configure" by hand which imitates the conventions, and do a much
better job of it.

Furthermore programs that use autotools do not really have consistent
conventions beyond that there is a script called "configure".

>     tar zxf foobar-0.1.tar.gz
>     cd foobar-0.1
>     ./configure --prefix=/some/where/foo-0.1
>     make

--prefix is pretty ubiquitous, but it rapidly breaks down from there.

>     make install

So now, what is the convention to put the program somewhere
other than in /some/where/foo-0.1?

For some programs it is this:

  make DESTDIR=/package/dir install

(/package/dir gets combined with the --prefix so there will be
/package/dir/some/where/foo-0.1)

For some others, there is configure argument, like

  ./configure --prefix=/foo --install-dir=/package/dir

> Packages with custom configuration, building, and installation scripts
> often impose a substantial burden if they don't follow a conventional
> sequence of commands.  

Nothing imposes a greater burden than a program which can't be built
for architecture X without executing architecture X code at build time.

I think many Linux distro maintainers would happily have every program follow
its own conventions, if they all could be cross-built without having to create
stupid little environments where stuff runs under chroot (because it wants to
wrongly access build-machine paths,  not sticking to the sysroot) or even under
QEMU (because the build wants to run target architecture code, even when
cross-compiling).

Configure and build systems that work cleanly, do not pick up build machine
pollution, and cross-compile without emulation are more improtant than shitty,
broken build systems that are vaguely compatible with each other in the
syntactic trivialities like --path.

> If they do, that's great, but I'd really rather
> not have to manually edit some file (whose identify is documented in
> README, or INSTALL, or is it installation-instructions.txt?) if I want
> to install it in a non-default location.

If the program's build system doesn't suck, I will gladly RTFM inside it and
follow how it wants it done.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 02:26 -0800
  Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 11:47 +0000
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-01-09 13:56 +0100
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 05:45 -0800
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 14:46 +0000
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 01:11 -0800
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 15:58 +0000
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2012-01-09 18:41 +0000
  Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 12:23 +0000
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-01-09 08:45 -0500
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-01-09 15:02 +0100
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-09 16:11 +0000
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 05:56 -0800
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 15:07 +0000
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 01:21 -0800
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-01-10 13:20 -0600
            Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 06:57 -0800
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 09:23 +0000
  Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 13:48 +0100
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:11 +0000
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-09 05:27 -0800
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:41 +0000
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:09 -0800
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 14:35 +0100
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:44 +0000
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:18 -0800
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 18:59 +0100
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-01-09 19:01 +0100
            Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 19:21 +0000
              Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 20:48 +0100
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> - 2012-01-10 14:26 -0600
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Richard <rgrdev_@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 21:44 +0100
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> - 2012-01-10 15:45 -0600
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 09:12 +0000
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-11 11:10 +0000
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-11 11:52 -0500
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-11 17:01 +0000
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-01-11 12:11 -0500
              Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 09:08 +0000
            Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 08:22 +0000
            Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 08:54 +0000
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 13:57 +0000
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-09 19:21 +0000
            Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-09 19:52 +0000
              Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-09 20:20 +0000
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:16 -0800
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-09 06:02 -0800
  Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-01-09 14:50 -0800
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-09 23:20 +0000
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-01-10 00:23 +0000
    Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.eu> - 2012-01-10 17:44 +0100
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ArifulHossain tuhin <etothepowerpi@gmail.com> - 2012-01-11 07:13 -0800
      Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-01-17 20:36 +0000
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code ec429 <ec429@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-01-17 23:06 +0000
          Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2012-01-17 15:32 -0800
            Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-18 00:40 +0000
              Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-18 18:35 +0000
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-01-18 19:15 +0000
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-21 21:32 +0000
            Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-18 07:26 +0100
              Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2012-01-18 11:07 +0100
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-21 21:32 +0000
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-22 10:42 +1300
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-22 18:53 +0100
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-22 19:00 +0100
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-23 19:28 +0100
              Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-01-18 08:44 -0600
              Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-18 07:09 -0800
                Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-01-18 17:44 +0100
        Re: Writing "absolutely" portable code Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2012-01-18 07:58 +0000

csiph-web