On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:59:45 -0700, Bruno Haible wrote
Rich Felker wrote
> If gnulib is willing to _detect_ working functions rather than trying
to detect musl
[...]
> We often, but not always, use an autoconf test that verifies that a
> function works. Why not always? Because such a test is ca. 20-50 lines of
> code, and a #ifdef is just 1 line of code.
ah, the problem is that you're LAZY.
i might notify your employer about that.
instead of fixing a problem once and for all, you prefer to add a quick hack
whenever a new system appears.
*this is the gnulib approach to "portability".*
well, if stuff "just worked", you would lose your position of power, where
people have to come here begging for help/patches, and you can play the big zampano.
additionally this way of handling things keeps a constant incoming flow of work
so you can keep your jobs.
thanks though for showing the world what a piece of crap gnulib and its design
philosophy is.
this creates a valuable reference to convince people not to use this turd.
-- JS
P.S.
Note that this is my private opinion and might not correspond to the opinion of
musl's authors or other users.
I just couldn't withstand to express my disgust when reading the latest mails
of bruno.
