Extension packaging

[arnold]

Hi.

I changed the subject line, since this is an unrelated topic.

<pjfarley3@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Not intending to bring up old flames or other far-too-extended past
> discussions of the subject, but unless things have changed since I last
> reviewed them then using gawk extensions requires the user to have ability
> and the knowledge and the time to recompile gawk and the extensions to gain
> access to their functionality.

Not true.  Gawk out of the box is able to load extensions. Extensions
must have been compiled with the same header (API) as gawk itself used.

> If the gawk extensions had been pre-packaged as binary capabilities for all
> commonly available gawk platforms (as IMHO they should have been from the
> beginning) (e.g., stable/LTS versions of Debian, ubuntu, centos, and Win10
> platforms) then they would have seen and would see far more use "in the
> field", especially for non-*ix system users.

The sample extensions that come in the gawk distribution, as far as I
know, *are* packaged in all the standard Linux distributions, as well
as Cygwin and MinGW. I don't know the status of homebrew for MacOS or
legacy Unixes of various sorts.

The issue is the gawkextlib project's extensions.  Including them in
standard distros is not something we (the GNU developers) have any
control over.  They *are* included by Redhat in Fedora, and have been
for a few years now.

W.R.T. other distributions, it's up to the users to lobby those distros
to make them available.  It's not hard to find out the contact person
for gawk for any particular distro and to send them mail asking for it;
one can point out that Redhat already does supply them as a possible
motivating factor.

As to the claim that the gawk distribution should just include
all the gawkextlib extensions: No, Thank You. The TeX Live distro
doesn't include all of CTAN, and the perl source tarball doesn't
include all of CPAN.  I will not let the gawk distro become a dumping
ground for every extension anyone may write. (Not that people are
bothering.)  I can't maintain everyone else's extensions and there
are paperwork issues as well vis a vis the FSF.

> I know this is a *really* sore point with some members of this list, but for
> me it is a "gee, I'm sorry they don't see it this way" moment.  It makes me
> sad, not mad, and I am one of those who do have (most of) the knowledge to
> assemble the tools and components needed to perform the required rebuilds.
> It is the allocation of the time and effort needed, not to mention keeping
> up with the bug fixes and enhancements.  I mainly need the use of the tools,
> not the effort needed to build and maintain them too.

Lobby the distros to get them to do the work.

> Whenever asked, I will make any financial contribution in my capability that
> is needed to support toolmakers and tool builders, but I am not one of them.

Feel free to throw money my way via PayPal: arnold@skeeve.com. The more
the better. (Quite seriously.)

Thanks,

Arnold