On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:46:28PM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:51:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > Whether there's a per-platform shell script for the Unices or one > > generic one that'll work well enough to bootstrap to the "Use parrot > > because it's nicer" phase of the build's up in the air. This way > > assumes the user has a command-line prompt of some sort and a C > > compiler. One of the big reasons I want a non-make make tool is so we > > can teach it to generate these scripts for us from the dependency > > lists. > > Is my impression correct that nobody has ever tried crosscompiling perl, > and that nobody is really interested in doing it in the future?
No. The WinCE port of perl (in the Perl 5 source) is a cross compile on Win32, as I understand it. The Zaurus packages are built as a cross compile on another Linux, and should be repeatable based on the instructions in the directory Cross/ > Well, I still don't understand what the _technical_ arguments against > autotools are, besides not being written by LW ;) > > Some pro arguments: > > - runs on about all available platforms today, configure written in sh sh doesn't run on all platforms that perl has done historically. (platforms where perl is built natively, but not using the Configure script) And sh is unlikely to get ported to them. While parrot might. Parrot doesn't rely on a fork()/exec() process model and interprocess pipelines, whereas I'm under the impression that sh does. And these are hard to emulate if they are absent. > - does proper cross compiler handling Which is really useful. > - c89 handling is no problem Which is good. > - everyone is used to configure/make/make install On Unix. There is more to Perl than Unix. Nicholas Clark
