> If you ask me about my wish *in general* I am ready to
> have a serious look at iffe plus I would like to have
> a system that requires as little code generation as possible.
> I like nmake/pmake (BSD make) approach which allows
> to create very simple Makefiles that do not need to be
> regenerated, at the cost of maintaining library
> of include files for Makefiiles (.include <bsd.prog.mk>)
Do you have example of iffe usage? because it's not clear from man. Also where
it is hosted or is it shipped with freebsd?
Oleksiy Chernyavskyy
________________________________
From: Marcin Cieslak <sa...@saper.info>
To: Oleksiy Ch <och...@rocketmail.com>
Cc: "cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
<cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [cdesktopenv-devel] poll: build system for CDE
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Oleksiy Ch wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> Let me raise one question: what is a best preferred build system
> you consider for CDE and in general? I address this question to
> people having experience with maintaining *nix software in general and
> writing code in particular.
Given that we need to work on (newer) ksh93, I wouldn't mind
having a closer look at iffe and its ast friends.
> Generally should CDE stay with Imake or move to other solution
> keeping simple as possible. Ugly gnu auto* or hand made simple and
> elegant configure ? What is your choice and vision? Please share your
> thoughts.
It should stay with imake. It's so simple. Most of the confusion
is about large amount of .cf files and information within.
I am also sometimes confused where are defaults, what gets
overriden with what, should I edit bsdLib.cf or FreeBSD.cf
and so on...
If you ask me about my wish *in general* I am ready to
have a serious look at iffe plus I would like to have
a system that requires as little code generation as possible.
I like nmake/pmake (BSD make) approach which allows
to create very simple Makefiles that do not need to be
regenerated, at the cost of maintaining library
of include files for Makefiiles (.include <bsd.prog.mk>).
One thing that annoys me with autoconf is that generated
files shipped with the distribution (configure for example)
are impossible to regenerate in a reproducible way; basically
if I find a bug in configure script I can't reset my environment
to rebuild the configure script as it was done at the
point of release on a release machine. FreeBSD macros will
be different, autoconf version will be slightly different, etc.
If I change configure.ac my new configure will be much more
different from the old one that it would result from
just my .ac changes.
I am also guilty of introducing #ifdefs like __FreeBSD__ and
not feature ones, but I generally believe we are lucky not
to have too many issues requiring inter-platform #ifdef's.
That makes me believe we will stay with imake for longer
- I don't think that amount of porting changes will
change the code into #ifdef nightmare.
I am more worried about 64 bit problems, which pop up
everywhere.
//Marcin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013
and get the hardware for free! Learn more.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb
_______________________________________________
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
