Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 02, 2006 01:23 PM
as a random GNU/Linux coder, I cannot but stop and praise gnulib.
The code-duplication argument is a NOP.
If you want to build a portable source release, you distribute your code with a set of gnulib replacement modules, which get compiled in in a generated gnulib library that _only includes the modules that the underlying OS is missing_. The needed modules are determined at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure time.
So only the strict necessary gets into the executable.
Gnulib removes the whole burden of the autoconf replacement macros, by calling them itself when necessary.
So if you are a coder looking for portability, _do _ walk the hard road of studying Make and autotools, and then complete the circle with gnulib.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
the great gnulib
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 02, 2006 01:23 PMI cannot but stop and praise gnulib.
The code-duplication argument is a NOP.
If you want to build a portable source release, you distribute your code with a set of gnulib replacement modules, which get compiled in in a generated gnulib library that _only includes the modules that the underlying OS is missing_. The needed modules are determined at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure time.
So only the strict necessary gets into the executable.
Gnulib removes the whole burden of the autoconf replacement macros, by calling them itself when necessary.
So if you are a coder looking for portability, _do _ walk the hard road of studying Make and autotools, and then complete the circle with gnulib.
Your random anonymous coder suggests it!
#