forgot to cc the list on this... and added some stuff
On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 that 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 tools,
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 think adding back C tools to gnustep-make is a good idea - for me it's like going backwards 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 complicated when a c tool would suffice. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev