Re:Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux...
by glandium on Saturday March 30, 2024 @08:26PM
(#39880091)
My rule of thumb is that things should never be disabled automatically. Make the test hard fail and print a message that the feature can be disabled.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux...
by cperciva on Saturday March 30, 2024 @11:26PM
(#39881117)
In my code I have a bunch of routines optimized for different platforms, e.g. using x86 AESNI instructions. Not all compilers support them, and they don't even make sense when compiling for a different CPU architecture.
It's much simpler to say "enable this if we can compile it" rather than detecting the compiler and target platform and throwing a mess of conditional compilation into an autoconf script.
Re:Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux...
by ComputerGuru on Saturday March 30, 2024 @10:02PM
(#39880660)
That’s how you make unusable/uncompilable software. It might be a good rule for something security critical like ssh but not as a general rule.
Re:Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux...
by glandium on Sunday March 31, 2024 @07:11PM
(#39889079)
I'd rather have people complaining about having to run configure a bunch of times to disable several features they don't have the libraries for than complaining that a feature doesn't work (because it ended up being disabled without them knowing).
Likewise, I'd rather distros figure out the hard way when a new release has a new feature and needs a new dependency rather than their users complain that a new feature is missing.
Principle of least surprises.