Re Hi :) On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 12:38:00PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Hope I'll explain managers at work, how build >> system is important for developer, that it is more important then these silly >> internationalization fixes and features, that it will give more attention to >> our company throughout the world, etc, etc, <usual trash that we often say to >> our managers follows>. In this case I'll have more time to work on build >> system. >I fully agree, the build system is very important to developer and this is the >reason >for not choosing autotools, autotools is a code destribution system but not a >build >system. Yes it does building, but not for developing code but for transfering >source >code into a systems structure. I understand that this is perfectly that what >is your >interest, but that was never the goal of the OpenOffice.org build system.
But I will say, it is a missing feature of the OpenOffice Buildsystem.
Sorry, but, OpenOffice is GPL, so Sun-developers should work, with
voluntears, on porting the code and enable the transfering to the system
strukture.
>From my standpoint there are two alternatives:
>
>1. expanding autotools to a build system.
that I would like .... :)
>2. expand OOo build system to a code destribution system.
>I don't see that approach #2 would be accepted by the community
> * because for little project autotools seem to be a reasonable build system
> * why switch to another system if there is a working system
> => in other words: I don't see the demand in OpenSource for a multiplatform
> buildsystem.
I disagree. One of the good points of OpenOffice is, it will run on some
other arches as M$ Office and on other OS'. We should enforce it.
I would like to see openoffice fully integrated into debian, some time
in the future.
>ehancing the autotools seems the more feasable way to me but it also have IHMO
>some
>clues:
> * two macro languages are used:
> * the m4 language
> * the make syntax
> developing code im a macro language get more difficult if the size of the
> project
> grows (It doesn't scale).
> * shell programing is needed. I think everybody who has developed sh scripts
> on
> different platform will agree, that it gets difficult if there are coming
> non
> GNU platforms like Solaris, AIX , HP/UX into play. all the tools differs in
> implementation and version ( just do a "man sh", "man test" ) on the
> different
> Unix flavors and you see that you have to test autotools script on every
> platform.
...
> to make it short: I dont't see anybody available right now, who is able
> and get the
> time to do ehancements for more features in autotools.
What about a build system like XFree? It is similar, but I think more
clean ... none of my personal builds from Xfree didn't fail.
>> My idea differs from Bernahrd's a little. I know that it is easy for Suners
>> to
>> keep it in one big source tree. I'm thinking about making alternative build
>> system that does everything that current does (solver, etc.), but based on
>> GNU
>> Make and autotools. It will be politically correct, because build systems
>> won't
>> interfere with each other, and my will be more flexible.
>If we come to a consens that we each accept the weaks of both approaches
>discussion will get easier.
>What is the definition of a political correct buildsystem:
> * has it to be autotools
> * or has it just to be (L)GPL.
The second .. but it should be easy to understand ... shouldn't it?
>I think a comprimise would be that each build system can call each other and
>has to
>be GPL/LGPL.
Yeah!
Regards
Jan
--
One time, you all will be emulated by linux!
----
Jan- Hendrik Palic
Url:"http://www.billgotchy.de";
E-Mail: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL++ P+++ L+++ E W++ N+ o+ K- w---
O- M- V- PS++ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5- X+++ R-- tv- b++ DI-- D+++
G+++ e+++ h+ r++ z+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
pgpOxUbmAMlAK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
