On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:59:59 +0100, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 1/24/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:45:41 +0100, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see the problem keeping them all. For configure recipes:
> pre_build() -> pre_configure() -> ./configure ->post_configure()
> ->pre_make() -> make -> post_make() -> post_build()
>
> For make:
> pre_build() -> pre_make() -> make ->post_maike() -> post_build()
>
> For perl:
> pre_build() -> pre_perl() -> perl Makefile.pl -> post_perl() ->
> pre_make() -> make ->post_make() -> post_build()
>
> You get the idea. It may seem complicated but will allow recipe
> authors to think in stages/steps rather than Compile internals.
Yes, this was where I aimed at. Primarely there was a missing hook
between
configure and make, but then I thought it was a good idea to create the
others as well. I remade the original patch and included a post_build. I
didn't use this at first because I thought this would be removed in the
future, but your idea is even better. I also created pre/post_perl, as I
forgot about them last time. I haven't introduced any new hooks for
python, because I'm not sure if I could move the pre_build() hook and
I'm
not confident with python build internals.
Sounds reasonable.
>> This one looks okay, but then I'm afraid it would be a matter of time
>> until --make-variables showed up, and so on. André mentioned "it
would
>> probably be better to ask Jonas what kinds of uses he has in mind for
>> this". If it's intended as a stopgap solution for the lack of
>> use-flags, then we should probably just add use-flags support instead
>
> There will always be configure options that won't be specified in
> use-flags. At least in the new version case. This (and
> --make-variables) allow for that. Not a bad thing. I've wanted this
> for awhile.
Just as a sidenote, I used this functionallity to add support for
fortran
in gcc. Instead of having to fetch the recipe, edit it and call Compile
with -W (alternatively moving the recipe dir to LocalRecipes, which I
most
often do, because then my changes wont be overwritten if I recompile
later
on and forget to use -W), I just had to do 'Compile -c
"--with-languages=c,c++,f95" gcc'. Very simple. And this option is
nothing
you will use a use flag for.
Ok, I'm convinced that at the very least it is a decent stopgap
solution. Any other opinions on that before committing?
How long will you wait for opinions? ;)
btw. I got the idea for the configure options feature from the '--' option
to CompileProgram. So the functionallity is already there in other parts
of the compilation package.
--
/Jonas
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
