Re: proposal: inetd improvements.

[Holger Weiß <lists%jhweiss.de@localhost>]

* der Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> [2010-06-02 07:43]:
> >     9.  convert it to libevent for portability and provide autoconf
> >         so that it can be built on other OSes (not used on NetBSD
> >         of course).
> 
> Well, IMO autoconf is not an improvement.  My opinion on autoconf (or
> more precisely on configure scripts, especially autoconf-generated
> configure scripts) can be found in my blah post of last November at
> ftp.rodents-montreal.org:/mouse/blah/2009-11-20-1.html

You state that Autoconf-generated configure scripts "don't do what they
try to, and pretend to, do: automatically configure the software
correctly for the system it's being built on."  Your only attempt to
prove this assertion is citing four examples of buggy configure scripts.
Of course, these examples only prove that Autoconf can be used to create
buggy configure scripts (just as GCC can be used to compile buggy
software).  They don't prove what you suggest to prove; i.e., that
Autoconf cannot be used (or at least is not a good tool) for creating
sane configure scripts.  Do you think the latter is the case?  If so:
why?

Holger

PS: You gave another two reasons why you don't like configure scripts,
    both related to security concerns which I believe are basically
    valid but should be addressed in ways other than by abstaining from
    automatic software configuration.  However, for the moment, I'm more
    interested in the first point.