HEADS-UP: removed COMPAT_43 from GENERIC (and other configs)

[Wesley Morgan]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <20060618084016.GA44510 at stud.fit.vutbr.cz>, Divacky Roman writes:
>
>> well.. you can never be sure but my point stands still - COMPAT_43TTY is
>> basically a bunch of tty-related ioctls so I dont see why apps like (gtar which
>> doesnt touch tty at all) should fail..
>
> I guess you didn't get the memo (attached).
>
> Poul-Henning
>
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of AutoCrap[tm]!
>
>   By applying an ill-advised methodology developed by inferior minds
>   in the 1980ies to deal with incompatible operating systems from
>   narrowminded vendors, AutoCrap[tm] is guaranteed to turn even
>   the most portable source code into a unportable mess.
>
>   AutoCrap[tm] employs a plethora of checks for features no longer
>   in existence on any running operating system, even if your software
>   package does not actually come close to using that feature.
>
>   By turning all AutoCrap[tm] infected sortware packages into totally
>   unreadable messes of #ifdefs, AutoCrap[tm] will seem like the only
>   feasible way to write portable code.
>
>   Upon seeing AutoCrap[tm] for the first time 99 out of 100 users
>   or programmers out there will cry out in despair "This portability
>   thing looks SOOO hard, thank goodness for AutoCrap[tm]"
>
>   AutoCrap[tm] sports an infection of options which nobody, including
>   the AutoCrap[tm] developers, can give any good reason why you
>   might want to apply, but even so, these options provide the 100%
>   sure defence: "You just need to set the right options" against
>   any people in a fit of insight or even actually wisdom might
>   claim that AutoCrap[tm] actually decreases software portability.
>
>
>   AutoCrap[tm] -- because we otherwise anybody could port software!

Very funny! Now tell us how you feel about libtool.

-- 
This .signature sanitized for your protection