Build fixes for Snow Leopard

Posted by Monty Taylor on September 01, 2009 at 11:22 PM

Eric Lambert found some build issues with the new release of OSX today. They're real pleasing. The first is that for some reason test programs testing for fdatasync() compile and run with no problem, but when trying to then use it in the main program, it doesn't work. (because it doesn't exist) So we had to add a special test program check (ugh - thanks Apple) And then they "upgraded" readline. Except they only half-upgraded, so it has half of the newer readline interface but not the other half. The fix to this is simple.

Download and install a real copy of readline instead of the half-baked pile-of-shit copy of editline wrappers that Apple ships. Works like a charm.

You know, it's fine if you want a (wanna-be) BSD system (which is actually non-free) and all. Whatever. But if you aren't going to ship readline, then don't ship readline. OR, man up and ship readline but then just link all of your BSD and closed source programs with editline. But don't put a cripppled and mostly worthless replacement wrapper - leave me with a real copy of readline so that my GPL programs actually work.

Or just stop shipping closed source garbarge.

4 Comments

  1. [1]   LinuxJedi
    September 02, 2009 at 02:38 AM

    Or you could just upgrade your Mac to Linux

  2. [2]   JustADeveloper
    September 03, 2009 at 04:13 AM

    Interesting post. I'm curious what on earth MacOS being non-Free has to do with shipping libraries or tools that are incompatible with Drizzle? IMO, they're completely unrelated. I've used countless GPL projects (Fedora comes to mind, but Ubuntu has done the same thing) where either a major or minor update release included similarly braindead decision making with respect to library choices or substantial functionality of userland tools. This is in no way unique to non-Free software. (Redhat & Fedora will even do you the "favor" of shipping a non-vanilla, GPL kernel with all manner of hybrid behaviors that make it difficult from a developer's standpoint to adjust for). You could easily substitute the name "Apple" for any number of other Free-software products who've caused similar incompatible pain. (Redhat has even shipped a "half-baked pile-of-shit copy" of RPM. As in your Apple example, the only viable workaround at the time was to depend on another packaging system or roll your own). You'd have a point about the nefariousness of Apple's closed-source software if, in this case, Apple somehow prevented you from installing and using your own tools (just like any Free product lets you), but they don't, and you don't.

  3. [3]   cazabnac
    December 25, 2009 at 09:55 PM

    cazabnac

  4. [4]   http://www.google.com/search?q=jdmpxjaz
    December 25, 2009 at 09:55 PM

Comment on this post