On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> I.e., why would I want to build Charmonizer as a standalone entity? > > Right now, just for the sake of hacking on Charmonizer in isolation. It's a > little weird that in order to build Charmonizer, you need the build script for > Lucy's Perl bindings -- that threw off Nate.
Actually, I was (and am) just generally having computer problems. My laptop hard drive has been dying a prolonged death, the desktop has random lock ups when I install all the RAM, etc. I didn't actually have problems compiling per-se, but I didn't feel I could test what I'd done well enough to check it in. A simple 'make test' option was what felt most lacking. I'm pro-Makefile, and would be happy to write a simple one that should work fine with GCC. I'm not against a single file solution, though. For a simple configuration system that's designed to be integrated into other build systems, it might be a good choice. In addition to SQLite, dlmalloc might be a good single-file role-model: <http://g.oswego.edu/dl/html/malloc.html>. Still might be worth having a tiny Makefile even for the single file solution, though. Nathan Kurz [email protected]
