On Sep 19, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Michael Barton wrote:
We should also aim for one unified mechanism and extension format,
as we will not be able to keep more than one supported in the long
term.
Also agree sort of. There are different ways of *making* extensions,
scripts, the GEM approach, William's makefile approach, and certainly
others. It's probably a good idea to settle on a limited number of
these
(e.g., decide on the best way to compile a binary from source, and
a best
way to distribute a binary, etc.).
But at the moment, I think it would be good to first focus on what
we do
with extensions however we make them. For this, we need some kind of
standard that makes them easy to use from the command line and easy
to run
as menu items in the GUI.
If we get this far, we can use the experience to go the next steps.
Glynn mentioned in the v.in.dwg discussion that the makefile
fragments present in a 6.3 install are meant to enable building
modules from source without the full GRASS source. I had noticed
these some time ago. I need to try it out - it's basically what I'm
doing with my external build makefiles.
-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/
"Oh, look, I seem to have fallen down a deep, dark hole. Now what
does that remind me of? Ah, yes - life."
- Marvin
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
