[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnustep-make experiment

From: Matt Rice
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:08:00 -0800

forgot to cc the list on this... and added some stuff

On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero <address@hidden> wrote:

> No that should still work..

Hard to believe.

Ok yeah I probably did break something with the gnustep-make patches,
but this *is* just
a prototype, and this does not mean it cannot be made to work..

from what I tested, I was able to compile gnustep-base as a fat binary.

So you're compiling a C tool and then hope to use
the compiled executable without change on all the cpu/os that we support ?

Just tried on mingw, and it fails to compile because of a lack of strsep,
that should be easy to to fix.

We managed to get rid of all C tools in gnustep-make in October 2006, and
was a good step in terms of simplification: no longer having to worry about
the location of tools in fat binary dirs when using gnustep-make's own

this is expected to be in the PATH, there is no need for that

cross-compilation issues simplified (and hopefully cleared out at some point
in the future), and a package that you drop somewhere there is a shell and a
make system and it just works.  I already told you in private that I don't
adding back C tools to gnustep-make is a good idea - for me it's like going
in time to a more complicated setup.

I just don't see the point in this, without a c tool we have to
rewrite the same code
in sh, make, c/objc, and csh and have autoconf replace stuff in a ton
of files...
if you add 1 variable you have to modify all these... seems needlessly
when a c tool would suffice.

reply via email to

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