[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: an update to automake-1.11?



Kevin Kofler writes:

Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Oh, no!  You mean, the tarball I downloaded from upstream, labeled "source
code", did not actually contain the source code?

It contains both the actual source code and some unreadable generated gibberish which is NOT source code and which is being passed off as such

Just because you can't read it, it's not gibberish.

Besides, Merriam-Webster defines "source code" as:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/source%20code

"a computer program in its original programming language (as FORTRAN or C) before translation into object code usually by a compiler"

You learn something new about configure scripts every day. I didn't know that gets translated into object code, before execution.

(which is why the autotools are broken by design: it's a mistake to encourage shipping generated files in a source tarball).

Oh, ok. Good luck with your quest to change the mind of everyone who uses autoconf, to do it your way. Perhaps you'd like to show everyone how it should be done. Pick just one moderately popular package, convince them to let you own release management, then start releasing tarballs without a configure script. Let us know how it works out, but kindly give advance warning. I want to stock up on earplugs.

Attachment: pgpP7Sms9n4vd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]