On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: Hi,
> I've added xhb support to hbmk2 a while ago, but so far > I didn't see quite a huge interest in this feature, so, > since it's a maintenance nightmare, and it isn't very > well tested either, I'd like to remove it. > But before I do so, I'd like to ask opinions on this > feature. Does anyone thinks it's good, or does anyone > actually needs it? > [ f.e. now with -undef:.ARCH. support in Harbour, I still > had to keep complete old code because of xhb support. ] If it creates any bigger problems then simply drop it. Anyhow you can also try to keep Harbour support with minimal cost and simply add function to update final commands like Harbour parameters or linked library list. BTW you can pass -undef:.ARCH. to xHarbour compiler and it will be simply ignored. The most important reason to keep xHarbour support in hbmk2 is using it as base make system in some 3-rd party projects what allows to eliminate different make files/systems but without some help from xHarboru developers then it will be hard to keep it alive. In this particular case I suggest to pase -undef:.ARCH. to xHarbour compiler and maybe in the future one of xHarbour developers (maybe Phil) will add support for this switch so it will not be ignored. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
