Re: stdioext on musl [was: gnulib portability issues]

[John Spencer]

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.