On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 12:27 +0100, daniel g. siegel wrote:
[snip]
> please understand, i dont want to bring up a "autotools is bad and it
> should die"-thread, i just want to use my time to code and not to use
> that time and effort on a build system.
It is a fact of life in software development
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 00:37 +, Who wrote:
[snip]
> Here are my thoughts:
>
> 1. What do you use to code!? What do I need on my system to do
> this?--
>
> Coding on Windows makes you soft, especially if you used something
> like Visual Studio. There will be a huge number
hi;
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 23:33 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> On 10/11/2007, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
> wrote:
>
> > * GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have
>
On Nov 9, 2007 11:43 PM, Matteo Settenvini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would like to discuss with you where we could act seriously in this
> direction. I've got some comments to make:
>
It sounds like at this stage some input from people who have found the
learning curve prohibitive might be
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 14:41 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
>
> > * GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
> > knowledge of C# or Java
>
> you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you can write
On 10/11/2007, Sebastian Pölsterl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen schrieb:
> >
> > POINTS OF ACTION:
> >
> > Here is a list of proposed actions to address some of the outlined
> issues.
> > They are intended not impose exc
On 10/11/2007, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
>
> > * GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
> > knowledge of C# or Java
>
> you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you can write
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:01 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> > Not any rule I know of; but using ./configure; make; make install (be
> > it with autotools or anything else) is quite useful to be integrated
> > in JHBuild modulesets.
>
> Sure, agreed. In waf it's just:
>
>
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 19:27 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 17:20 +0100, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
> > ...
>
>
> Isn't this what we have the version control system for? How does this
> differ from multiple checkouts?
- No need to do multiple checkouts
- If you got some local c
On Nov 10, 2007 7:27 PM, Ruben Vermeersch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't this what we have the version control system for? How does this
> differ from multiple checkouts?
Not sure where you got vcs from. The point here is that a buildsystem
should put diffrent builds in diffrent build director
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 17:20 +0100, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 14:37 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:52 +0100, Daniel Svensson wrote:
> > > waf runs in two steps, first configure,
> > > then build. And I cannot stress enough how fast it is. Zooom! Also
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 14:37 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:52 +0100, Daniel Svensson wrote:
> > waf runs in two steps, first configure,
> > then build. And I cannot stress enough how fast it is. Zooom! Also
> it
> > has a very nice looks ;)
>
> Yes, I evaluated waf a few m
On Nov 10, 2007 7:41 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
>
> > * GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
> > knowledge of C# or Java
>
> you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you ca
On Nov 10, 2007 3:42 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and adding the interpreter for the language du jour is not going to
> magically remove those dependencies. in fact, it's going to increase
> them because:
>
> 1. you will need the interpreter for that language
Seems like pytho
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 13:45 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen a
écrit :
> In my ideal world a build system would be completely decoupled from
> the implementation - for example like Ant XML with the Java-isms
> converted to generic instructions.
Please, not until you can express the equivale
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen schrieb:
>
> POINTS OF ACTION:
>
> Here is a list of proposed actions to address some of the outlined issues.
> They are intended not impose excessive work load on module maintainers.
>
> * Write a "GObjects for Java/C# De
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 13:45 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> Yes, I am aware that Rob was referring to the tarball case. However
> you still need a horde of build dependencies probably 95% header files
> and then a related set of scripts/tools to build most of the Gnome
> stack.
and
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> * GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
> knowledge of C# or Java
you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you can write
native C# and Java applications.
> * Autotools are exceptionally har
On 10/11/2007, Matteo Settenvini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Il giorno ven, 09/11/2007 alle 16.58 -0600, Jonathon Jongsma ha scritto:
> > On 11/9/07, Lucas Rocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - Are the current drawbacks of using autotools in GNOME so so so
> > > annoying that it would be re
On 10/11/2007, Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:44 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > Totally wrong. I dare you build anything with a barebones linux
> > install with only a shell and make. You need:
> >
> > * A C compiler
> > * Tons and tones of -dev p
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:32 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> >> In this case there is an easy solution. Convert a few GNOME projects
> >> to the new build system and show the result.
> >
> > Good plan. I've go
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:44 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> Totally wrong. I dare you build anything with a barebones linux
> install with only a shell and make. You need:
>
> * A C compiler
> * Tons and tones of -dev packages
> * If you want to compile a fresh SVN/CVS checkout you n
On 10/11/2007, Rob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 15:40 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> >> That said, there is one concern which trumps all others when choosing
> >> a
> >> build system: how easy is it for someone with a plain vanilla
> >> distribu
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:43 +0100, Matteo Settenvini wrote:
[snip]
> we need some proper documentation
> explaining how the GNOME stack is built,
jhbuild should take care of building. There is a lot of information
about how to use jhbuild, including solving specific problems on
specific distros.
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:01 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
>> Not any rule I know of; but using ./configure; make; make install (be
>> it with autotools or anything else) is quite useful to be integrated
>> in JHBuild modulesets.
>
> Sure, agreed. In waf it's just:
>
> waf
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:32 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> In this case there is an easy solution. Convert a few GNOME projects
>> to the new build system and show the result.
>
> Good plan. I've got an old branch of gnome-power-manager building with
> waf, and I indend on h
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:01 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Not any rule I know of; but using ./configure; make; make install (be
> it with autotools or anything else) is quite useful to be integrated
> in JHBuild modulesets.
Sure, agreed. In waf it's just:
waf configure --prefix=/foo/bar/baz
waf
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:32 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > In this case there is an easy solution. Convert a few GNOME projects
> > to the new build system and show the result.
>
> Good plan. I've got an old branch of gnome-power-manager building with
> waf, and I indend o
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0500, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
>
> I tried to use CMake last year to be curious, and it failed because of
> the lack of documentation. With autotools I discover new tricks every
> days, but most of them are just in the documentation that is widely
> available (unlike C
Alp,
I agree that you can learn by tutorials and documentation. I certainly
have and it didn't seem that hard to me. In fact, I picked up auto*
faster than I did SCons and whatever that new one was that KDE folks
were using. That said, Richard isn't the only one that is cutting
pieces from othe
30 matches
Mail list logo
