Re: ttn's build system [was: Extended -e syntax]

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Andreas Rottmann <address@hidden>

    > [ Tom: Thien-Thi Nguyen has written a buildsystem for his Guile branch
    >   which uses autoconf, but replaces automake, suing Guile. I intend to
    >   make that play well with Arch, akin to your package-framework, so
    >   you might be interested in this message ]

Sort of.   I cut my professional teeth working on build systems and
have some definate ideas about them.   auto* (including -conf) is
... um ... suboptimal.

It would merit its own big-ass project to replace them in a
comprehensive way --- something I'm interested in but don't have much
bandwidth to work on.  And, anyway, few people have enough experience
in this area to do it well or understand why a good design is good --
so volunteer contributions would be hard to shepherd.   And also:
obtaining _adoption_ of new systems is steep uphill climb -- there's a
lot of inertia to overcome.

Personally, with due respect to the list, it's something I'm more
likely to want to work on once Pika is humming along rather than
before.   It's an area that has pretty touchy requirements for the
scripting language used.

So, yes, I'm interested -- but no, I'm not about to delve into it in
depth.


-t


p.s.: why are package systems and configuration systems different
  things?  Makes no sense (other than historical) at all.