Re: [dev] suckless distro

From: koneu <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:41:08 +0200

On June 25, 2014 4:34:59 PM CEST, Sylvain BERTRAND <> wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:23:32PM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:30 +0200
>> Sylvain BERTRAND <> wrote:
>>> 100%. It's not suckless to use a makefile if recompiling all
>>> source files takes little time. The main purpose of makefiles is
>>> to cherry pick what to recompile on large projects in order to
>>> minimize build time. Pointless and technically expensive for
>>> small project SDKs, period.
>> The main purpose of makefiles is to make stuff, including building
>> or less complex software-projects.
>> Even if a project of mine only has one source-file, I still write a
>> makefile to accomodate to common practice.
>> I won't stop you from writing shell-scripts, but I think it's really
>> stupid and a waste of time to do it.
>> If you don't know how to write portable makefiles, please don't start
>> ranting on this great system which has proven itself for decades.
>>> I started to remove makefiles from my SDKs. Because all are small
>>> (except the radeon GPU driver which is a linux module).
>>> I stole parts of the ffmpeg configure script for my
>>> needs.
>> Are there any reasons for it other than irrational ones?
>I did explain my reasons. If you and some others judge them
>"irrationnal" so be it. My SDKs will be "irrationnal" then :)
>This is where I draw the line for my SDKs: build time too
>annoying with a brutal and stupid sh script --> I'll go makefile
>to cherry pick what to compile/generate and speed up the build.
>>> We disagree on the license. I think exactly the other way around.
>>> Nothing new here...
>> I used to be a GPL-fanatic like you, but then I took an arrow to the
>> knee.
>Licence choice is not a fanatic choice. I do prefer and favor GNU
>GPL protected software. I have reasons. I already explained them,
>and you probably read them as well. And for your information, I'm
>not bothered to work on some components which are not protected
>by a GNU GPL license, on a case by case basis evolving over time.
>You got shot to the knee? That hurts a lot. Coze those who are
>shot in the knee with one of the GNU GPL licenses are those who
>"forgot" to provide the source code of modified GNU GPL protected
>code to their users.
>Are you one of those?

Thanks. You prefixing the GPL with GNU each and every GNU time made this so much GNU more entertaining to GNU read.
Received on Wed Jun 25 2014 - 16:41:08 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jun 25 2014 - 16:48:15 CEST