[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 
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.


-----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 
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 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 
wants to set
something like library-combo etc, it should pick that up doesn't really want all variables just some of them, so i 
still need to add
support for outputting multiple specified variables

then just needs to go -x foo -x bar for all the variables 
it does want.
and it currently doesn't clean gnustep-config.make.

Gnustep-dev mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]