[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnustep-make experiment
From: |
Nicola Pero |
Subject: |
Re: gnustep-make experiment |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:04:14 +0100 (CET) |
This patch rewrites some internal code (making it more complex, not more easy,
but I suppose it's a matter of taste) and the only visible effect I can see is
that
it destroys the non-flattened (ie, fat binary) support in gnustep-make. :-(
Fat binaries *will* be/are supported in gnustep-make v2, and given all the
effort that was
spent to keep that very difficult feature working across massive changes in
going from
gnustep-make v1 to gnustep-make v2, I do want it to be clearly advertised and
marketed. :-)
No way we're dropping it right now once all the work has been completed and
we're on track
with gnustep-make v2.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Rice <address@hidden>
Sent: Fri, February 16, 2007 8:25 pm
To: Adam Fedor <address@hidden>
Cc: Developer GNUstep <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
On 2007-02-15 12:44:18 -0800 Adam Fedor <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
>
>>
>> Have we even tried, experimentally, doing this refactoring to see
>> if it
>> actually would make things simpler? The best way to prove a point
>> is
>> code. I would like to see if it can be done.
>>
>> While I understand it's not *strictly* needed for FHS
>> compliance..... it
>> is something that many developers, outside of GNUstep, use on a
>> daily
>> basis.
>>
>> If someone can produce a patch which would simplify gnustep-make
>> that uses
>> pkg-config, I really don't see a reason not to consider including
>> it.
>
> I don't really see the point of this. It might be nice to support
> pkg-config for those who want it, but pkg-config doesn't even come
> close to
> supporting the requirements of GNUstep development. First,
> pkg-config is
> only for developers. Maybe it would be useful for writting a few
> tools and
> such using GNUstep, but for anything more complicated? Why would a
> developer want to used all the advanced capabilities of the GNUstep
> envirnoment AND want to write all their Makefiles from scratch using
> pkg-config? Seems counter-productive.
>
> As Nicola said, it doesn't even simply things, either.
>
well attached is a patch anyways which implements a step-config
program in c,
it is very similar to pkg-config, but provides a c api and some output
formats
make has been modified to output a file gnustep-config.make so
step-config only
needs to be run once... gnustep.cfg unlike gnustep.conf is required
GNUstep.sh has
been modified to run step-config instead of the other way around
This patch is against yesterdays svn so its possibly a little bit out
of date
a few things to note, it defers to the environment, so if GNUstep.sh
wants to set
something like library-combo etc, it should pick that up
GNUstep.sh doesn't really want all variables just some of them, so i
still need to add
support for outputting multiple specified variables
then GNUstep.sh just needs to go -x foo -x bar for all the variables
it does want.
and it currently doesn't clean gnustep-config.make.
<foo.diff>
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
- Re: gnustep-make experiment, (continued)
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Matt Rice, 2007/02/12
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Nicola Pero, 2007/02/13
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Gregory John Casamento, 2007/02/13
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Nicola Pero, 2007/02/13
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Gregory John Casamento, 2007/02/15
Re: gnustep-make experiment,
Nicola Pero <=
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Nicola Pero, 2007/02/16
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Nicola Pero, 2007/02/16
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Fred Kiefer, 2007/02/18
Re: gnustep-make experiment, Nicola Pero, 2007/02/18