Ah, if gir2gapi would remove the need of Perl then I agree with Mike it should not be worked on, because it would get deprecated anyway.
I don't know enough about F# to make a judgement, but seems more adequate than Ruby, if you were to choose something additional to msbuild/xbuild. On 23 August 2011 20:03, Gabe McArthur <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm fine with getting rid of the perl and porting it all to .net. Any chance > I could use F# for some of the heavy lifting? I don't want to be a dick > (warning: about to be a dick) but the less time I spent working through > templating and asset zipping and calling external tools from msbuild, the > happier I (and hopefully everyone else) will be. I'm extremely comfortable > in ruby, but I can get everything to run from 1 msbuild command, all under > .net. > > -Gabe McArthur > On Aug 23, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Mike Kestner <[email protected]> wrote: > > The only perl in master is the parser, which is not run at build time and is > not worth converting to .net regexes. I'd rather pursue the gir2gapi XML > converters than spend any more time on the parser than the occasional bugfix > at this point. > There was a perl script in older versions to do cdecl mangling, but that's > gone in master. > I agree on avoiding the ruby dep. If we are going to xbuild/msbuild, it's > to simplify the windows build and general portability. Adding ruby won't > help there. > Mike > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Andres G. Aragoneses <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> IMHO the main point about migrating to MSBuild is preventing the hassle >> of depending on "unixy" tools in Windows. If you add a dependency to >> Ruby, you're introducing yet another problem (even if you're talking >> about IronRuby). >> >> Also FYI there is some step in the GTK# build system that is done in >> Perl. I would vote to translate that to C# as first step. (This would >> sound risky to some people, but if the code translated to C# generates >> the same output as the Perl does currently, that's the best test to >> certify there are no main bugs in the migration.) >> >> Cheers >> >> On 08/22/2011 04:32 PM, Gabe McArthur wrote: >> > Sorry for not being clear. I'd love to take on the build stuff, learning >> > as I go about what's in the codebase. How open would you be to replacing >> > minor things that may be too verbose or time consuming to do with >> > msbuild in something like ruby? I used to be a build engineer at MS, and >> > there are few things I learned to enjoy less than maintain msbuild >> > files. >> > >> > -Gabe McArthur >> > >> > On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Mike Kestner <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Gabe, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Gabe Mc >> >> <<mailto:[email protected]>madeonamac@gmail. com >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey, >> >> >> >> I'm looking to contribute to mono in some way, and I thought that I >> >> could start with GTK#. I wanted to dig in and see what's involved >> >> and >> >> possibly make some fixes to make the system compatible with >> >> downstream >> >> tools (like mono-addins, which currently does not build with >> >> GTK#3.0). >> >> >> >> >> >> Not sure what you mean by making the system compatible. If you mean >> >> providing backwards compatibility in 3.0 to 2.x, I doubt that's going >> >> to be possible. Too much changed and was removed. Size negotiation, >> >> drawing, fundamental concepts which aren't going to map well. >> >> >> >> If you mean you want to start porting other libraries to work with >> >> 3.0, that may be premature, since we haven't even released a preview >> >> yet. You could probably start the ports on branches or a github fork >> >> though to be merged back later, and report and help any issues the >> >> ports expose in gtk-sharp master. >> >> >> >> I was also interested in making general build improvements, like >> >> possibly replacing Makefiles with xbuild project files. Any >> >> thoughts/criticisms of this idea? Am I stepping on toes? >> >> >> >> >> >> The glue is being reduced, but it's an obstacle to switching to xbuild >> >> projects. We would also need MSBuild tasks to do things like fixup and >> >> generation. Those are things I've wanted to do for a while, to make it >> >> easier to build on windows without cygwin/msys. It's not a trivial >> >> task though. If you wanted to take a stab, I'd be happy to try to >> >> answer questions as they arise. >> >> >> >> Mike >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gtk-sharp-list maillist - [email protected] >> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gtk-sharp-list maillist - [email protected] >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list > > _______________________________________________ > Gtk-sharp-list maillist - [email protected] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list > _______________________________________________ Gtk-sharp-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list
