Nicola,
I love most of the changes you are currently undertaking on the GNUstep
make system but there is one that really gets to my nerves. The make
processes are now complaining about GNUSTEP_USER_ROOT and
GNUSTEP_FLATTENED being obsolete. I did not define them myself, they are
set by the
GNUstep gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Nicola,
I love most of the changes you are currently undertaking on the GNUstep
make system but there is one that really gets to my nerves. The make
processes are now complaining about GNUSTEP_USER_ROOT and
GNUSTEP_FLATTENED being obsolete
:49 pm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Developer GNUstep gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Nicola,
I love most of the changes you are currently undertaking on the GNUstep
make system but there is one that really gets to my nerves. The make
processes are now complaining
On 2007-02-16 11:25:49 -0800 Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-02-15 12:44:18 -0800 Adam Fedor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Have we even tried, experimentally, doing this refactoring to see
if it
actually would make things
On 2007-02-16 12:04:14 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch rewrites some internal code (making it more complex, not
more easy,
but I suppose it's a matter of taste) and the only visible effect I
can see
is that it destroys the non-flattened (ie, fat binary) support in
No that should still work..
Hard to believe. So you're compiling a C tool and then hope to use
the compiled executable without change on all the cpu/os that we support ?
We managed to get rid of all C tools in gnustep-make in October 2006, and that
was a good step in terms of simplification:
forgot to cc the list on this... and added some stuff
On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No that should still work..
Hard to believe.
Ok yeah I probably did break something with the gnustep-make patches,
but this *is* just
a prototype, and this does not mean it cannot be
Matt, thanks for your comments.
I understand your desire to centralize the configuration, but there
is an actual reason why GNUstep.sh is a pure shell script. ;-)
It's a machine-independent program that can be in a machine-independent
directory
and that can then be used to bootstrap the fat
On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt, thanks for your comments.
I understand your desire to centralize the configuration, but there
is an actual reason why GNUstep.sh is a pure shell script. ;-)
It's a machine-independent program that can be in a machine-independent
directory
On 17 Feb 2007, at 02:11, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt, thanks for your comments.
I understand your desire to centralize the configuration, but there
is an actual reason why GNUstep.sh is a pure shell script. ;-)
It's a machine-independent program
]
To: Gregory John Casamento [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Andrew Ruder [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:20:31 PM
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
1) Is pkg-config critical to the goal of FHS compliance?
No.
2) Can
On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:35 AM, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Have we even tried, experimentally, doing this refactoring to see
if it
actually would make things simpler? The best way to prove a point is
code. I would like to see if it can be done.
While I understand it's not *strictly*
On 12 Feb 2007, at 16:47, Nicola Pero wrote:
IIRC we had some extensive discussions on the mailing lists that
.sh/.csh should only be used for scripts that are sourced. But since
GNUStep.sh is referenced so often in the archives, I'm having a hard
time finding the discussion.
I don't
Richard Frith-Macdonald schrieb:
On 12 Feb 2007, at 16:47, Nicola Pero wrote:
IIRC we had some extensive discussions on the mailing lists that
.sh/.csh should only be used for scripts that are sourced. But since
GNUStep.sh is referenced so often in the archives, I'm having a hard
time
On 13 Feb 2007, at 11:36, David Ayers wrote:
snipped lots of examples of scripts without a .sh
I fear we would be starting a new convention by using .sh, but I'm
sure
we would get more discussion on conventions if take this to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't mean to imply that use of a '.sh'
On 12 Feb 2007, at 17:05, Nicola Pero wrote:
Thanks ... good points. I like the idea of doing it automatically
only if the user wants it, but I'm (personally) not too keen on
having scripts
that try to talk to the user and that require attention.
Maybe we could just print a warning at the
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:18:54AM +, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
An extra dependency most emphatically IS an issue ... because the
'people' you are referring to actually just means 'you', and you are
just guessing about other users, and even assuming that 'most' is
actually the case,
On 13 Feb 2007, at 13:39, Andrew Ruder wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:18:54AM +, Richard Frith-Macdonald
wrote:
An extra dependency most emphatically IS an issue ... because the
'people' you are referring to actually just means 'you', and you are
just guessing about other users, and
of these is yes then I feel it's something that we
should explore.
Later, GJC
--
Gregory Casamento
- Original Message
From: Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Ruder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:01:49 AM
Subject: Re: gnustep-make
1) Is pkg-config critical to the goal of FHS compliance?
No.
2) Can we leverage it to simplify gnustep-make?
No, but you can leverage it to make it even more complicated! ;-)
Thanks
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
On 11 Feb 2007, at 11:23, David Ayers wrote:
Nicola Pero schrieb:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and
committed it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not
sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of
Richard Frith-Macdonald schrieb:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 11:23, David Ayers wrote:
Should we
1) tweak the environment to allow AC_CHECK_LIB to work?
2) create our own:
- AC_CHECK_GNUSTEP_LIBRARY
- AC_CHECK_GNUSTEP_FRAMWORK
- AC_CHECK_GNUSTEP_NATIVELIBRARY
macros to be included in
On 12 Feb 2007, at 11:51, David Ayers wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald schrieb:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 11:23, David Ayers wrote:
Should we
1) tweak the environment to allow AC_CHECK_LIB to work?
2) create our own:
- AC_CHECK_GNUSTEP_LIBRARY
- AC_CHECK_GNUSTEP_FRAMWORK
-
* How we decide if we have to run ldconfig or not ? Do we need to
run it only on GNU/Linux ? Are there similar tools on other
unixes ? (I imagine so, so we'll have a general-purpose post-
library-install target-dependent command that we run automatically)
I'm pretty sure even
On 12 Feb 2007, at 15:51, Nicola Pero wrote:
* How we decide if we have to run ldconfig or not ? Do we need to
run it only on GNU/Linux ? Are there similar tools on other
unixes ? (I imagine so, so we'll have a general-purpose post-
library-install target-dependent command that we run
IIRC we had some extensive discussions on the mailing lists that
.sh/.csh should only be used for scripts that are sourced. But since
GNUStep.sh is referenced so often in the archives, I'm having a hard
time finding the discussion.
I don't remember that discussion, but it's plain obvious
add ldconfig=yes to your
environment ...
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, February 12, 2007 5:32 pm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Adam Fedor [EMAIL PROTECTED], Developer GNUstep gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
But I actually want to clarify what I meant with the third option for
the configure issue... My goal is to have ./configure of GDL2 identify
whether libGorm is installed/usable so it can decide whether the palette
should be build or not.
(The servers I deploy my GSWeb App on do not have
Nicola Pero schrieb:
But I actually want to clarify what I meant with the third option for
the configure issue... My goal is to have ./configure of GDL2 identify
whether libGorm is installed/usable so it can decide whether the palette
should be build or not.
(The servers I deploy my GSWeb App on
David Ayers schrieb:
Also I think the order should be according to precedence i.e.
GNUSTEP_FIND_LIBRARY = $(strip $(wildcard $(addsuffix $(strip $(1)).so, \
$(GNUSTEP_USER_ROOT)/Library/Libraries/lib \
$(GNUSTEP_LOCAL_ROOT)/Library/Libraries/lib \
- this search would be executed for /every/ make invocation instead of
once during configure.
It would be really slow if we were trying to compile something against the
library
for every make invocation. Subprocesses are very slow, and the compiler is
particularly slow. :-/
But if we're
On 2007-02-12 10:30:57 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pkg-config works best if compile/link flags are fixed and listed in a
file.
The compile/link flags in gnustep-make are determined dynamically
instead,
they are not fixed.
This is possible with pkg-config, you can reference
You can have non-flattened multi-platform installations that are
mounted from
the network; the same gnustep-make will then use different
compilation
flags/tools for the different hosts (keep in mind that each host
might also
have a different
filesystem configuration, eg, they could
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:59:06AM +0100, Nicola Pero wrote:
And then adding an external dependency - which is a massive pain for
users, developers and maintainers - just to do the equivalent of 'echo
$CFLAGS' is somehow hardly attractive.
An extra dependency here is not an issue, especially
On 2007-02-12 18:59:06 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because we don't even store fixed
sets of flags, but we compute them dynamically, using pkg-config to
print
them is more of an additional problem
than a solution.
I forget exactly how non-flattend looks having not used it
Because we don't even store fixed sets of flags, but we compute them
dynamically,
using pkg-config to print them is more of an additional problem
than a solution.
I forget exactly how non-flattend looks having not used it since the
default changed...
but heres an example of a dynamic
On 13 Feb 2007, at 03:19, Andrew Ruder wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:59:06AM +0100, Nicola Pero wrote:
And then adding an external dependency - which is a massive pain for
users, developers and maintainers - just to do the equivalent of
'echo
$CFLAGS' is somehow hardly attractive.
An
Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the way
GNUstep stores information.
Here is a refresher --
1. it adds an external dependency upon which *everything* would depend
an entirely
Nicola Pero schrieb:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
I'm trying to follow this discussion but it seems
so can we change everything to
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES ?= $(shell gnustep-config.sh GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)
include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make
I think it's a good suggestion, even if I'd change it (slightly) to be
ifeq ($(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES),)
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES := $(shell gnustep-config.sh
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed
it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
Yes, it is meant to be executed, not sourced. Not sure what
On 2007-02-11 04:47:50 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so can we change everything to
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES ?= $(shell gnustep-config.sh GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)
include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make
I think it's a good suggestion, even if I'd change it (slightly) to be
ifeq
On 2007-02-11 05:02:53 -0800 Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless this is about = vs := where there exists nothing like :?=
this seems to be the case how := only execute the $(shell) a few times
instead of
once per time $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES) is used
On 2007-02-11 05:00:20 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and
committed
it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not
sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
Nicola Pero schrieb:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed
it.
Minor nit... isn't gnustep-config.sh meant to be executed, not sourced?
So shouldn't it be named gnustep-config instead of gnustep.config.sh?
Yes, it is meant to be executed, not sourced.
On 2007-02-11 03:23:35 -0800 David Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicola Pero schrieb:
So how does is help with writing configure scripts?
Maybe something like?
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES=${GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES:=`gnustep-config
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES`}
if test -z $GNUSTEP_PATHLIST; then
.
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 04:33, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the way
GNUstep stores information.
Here is a refresher --
1. it adds an external dependency
Christopher Armstrong wrote:
Hi
I usually try to avoid playing with GNUstep on Windows as it always
takes too long to setup an environment to run stuff in, but these
pkg-config discussions drew me back in.
Wim Oudshoorn schrieb:
Well, did you actually try compiling pkg-config?
I did not
Did you add your System Libraries directory and your Local Libraries
directory to /etc/ld.so.conf ? Did you run ldconfig after installing
any new library ? If not, it won't work.
That's the same for lots of non-gnustep stuff too, but mostly non-
gnustep stuff seems to avoid the problem.
On Feb 11, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Alex Perez wrote:
there are clear advantages...
now I can add stuff to configure for things *using* gnustep-make
which attempts to see if
GNUstep libraries exist.
there could be a way to bootstrap gnustep-make to just work
without any gnustep specific
Adam Fedor wrote:
On Feb 11, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Alex Perez wrote:
there are clear advantages...
now I can add stuff to configure for things *using* gnustep-make
which attempts to see if
GNUstep libraries exist.
there could be a way to bootstrap gnustep-make to just work
without any
On 11 Feb 2007, at 22:30, Alex Perez wrote:
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007, at 04:33, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the
way GNUstep stores
Wim Oudshoorn schrieb:
Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-02-09 09:18:02 -0800 Wim Oudshoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So next I tried to download pkg-config version 0.21 and compile it
(on
MS Windows). Of course that failed because I hadn't installed glib.
So
I gave up. (I tried
On Feb 8, 2007, at 14:13, Nicola Pero wrote:
Here is an example -- put this at the top of your GNUmakefile, just
before include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make --
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES = $(word 1, \
$(wildcard /usr/GNUstep/System/Library/Makefiles) \
$(wildcard
On 2007-02-10 05:20:45 -0800 Fred Kiefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wim Oudshoorn schrieb:
Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-02-09 09:18:02 -0800 Wim Oudshoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So next I tried to download pkg-config version 0.21 and compile it
(on
MS Windows). Of course that
On 2007-02-10 09:27:32 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a quick test of a makefile executing pkg-config 1000 times takes
about 6
seconds..
say there are 5 invocations of pkg-config per invocation of make...
thats
200 make processes.
Wow - that would be a massive overhead ...
I haven't followed this in particular detail, and I haven't looked at
the actual work you have done, so I might well be missing some points
or misunderstanding ... sorry, just haven't had time.
First I'll say how I think pkg-config could be useful for GNUstep.
Then I'll address points in
On 2007-02-10 11:48:55 -0800 Richard Frith-Macdonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't followed this in particular detail, and I haven't looked at
the
actual work you have done, so I might well be missing some points or
misunderstanding ... sorry, just haven't had time.
First I'll say
On 2007-02-10 11:48:55 -0800 Richard Frith-Macdonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The current setup was particularly designed to 'play nice with the
rest of
the world'.
You can't get much nicer than a file in a standard location which
both the
shell and makefiles can use. A pkg-config file
Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
Hm, I just read part of this discussion.
Apparently pkg-config is a very popular tool for
finding dependencies etc. Also it seems to be used
by plenty of libraries and people, although I never encountered
it in practice. For me a .pc is probably a mystery.
So before
Third, Nicola keeps on claiming in this thread that a standard GNUstep
could be compiled by just setting the values in GNUstep.conf and doing
nothing else. This does not work for me, I still need to source
GNUstep.sh to get things working. Otherwise the compilation of gui
complains that it
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the way
GNUstep stores information.
Here is a refresher --
1. it adds an external dependency upon which *everything* would depend
2. it is slower
3. it is designed for something else (which adds complexity)
4. it requires
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and committed it.
Thanks!
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
On 2007-02-10 17:35:44 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea of your patch, so I rewrote the shell script and
committed it.
Thanks!
so can we change everything to
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES ?= $(shell gnustep-config.sh GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)
include
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the way
GNUstep
stores information.
Here is a refresher --
1. it adds an external dependency upon which *everything* would depend
an entirely optional dependency,
Hi
I usually try to avoid playing with GNUstep on Windows as it always
takes too long to setup an environment to run stuff in, but these
pkg-config discussions drew me back in.
Wim Oudshoorn schrieb:
Well, did you actually try compiling pkg-config?
I did not investigate deeply but the
On 2007-02-10 20:46:30 -0800 Christopher Armstrong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Considering some of the effort needed to get pkg-config working on
Windows, could we please maintain all existing build methods in
gnustep-make? IMHO pkg-config still feels like a alpha quality
programme
in some
On 11 Feb 2007, at 00:38, Nicola Pero wrote:
Third, Nicola keeps on claiming in this thread that a standard
GNUstep
could be compiled by just setting the values in GNUstep.conf and
doing
nothing else. This does not work for me, I still need to source
GNUstep.sh to get things working.
On 11 Feb 2007, at 04:33, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-10 17:34:59 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com wrote:
The only objection i've heard from gnustep.pc is Its not the way
GNUstep stores information.
Here is a refresher --
1. it adds an external dependency upon which
On 2007-02-08 20:29:50 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we had gnustep-make depend on pkg-config, then you wouldn't be
able to
use GNUstep unless you installed pkg-config first.
That's not entirely correct. GNUstep can be taught how to read
pkgconfig-format-file, such as
On 2007-02-08 05:13:32 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we could have a small makefile fragment, let's call it find-
gnustep.make,
that searches for gnustep-make on disk and sets GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES
to the
best
match. I'll write that makefile fragment, and it will be
On 9 Feb 2007, at 13:04, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-08 05:13:32 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com wrote:
So we could have a small makefile fragment, let's call it find-
gnustep.make,
that searches for gnustep-make on disk and sets
GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES to the best
match.
On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
Right, and also, frankly, there's a very important non-technical
aspect
to this as well; Way more developers know what the heck .pc files and
pkg-config are, as well as how they work, than a funky GNUstep.conf
file, which, while somewhat
On 2007-02-09 05:27:39 -0800 Richard Frith-Macdonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 Feb 2007, at 13:04, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-02-08 05:13:32 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com
wrote:
So we could have a small makefile fragment, let's call it find-
gnustep.make,
that
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Matt Rice wrote:
anyhow i guess i will come up with a patch to use a gnustep-config
which gets its information from
GNUstep.conf and we can argue over that...
(in other words reimplement pkg-config for GNUstep)
I just don't think we should disregard existing
On 2007-02-09 08:41:29 -0800 Adam Fedor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Matt Rice wrote:
anyhow i guess i will come up with a patch to use a gnustep-config
which
gets its information from
GNUstep.conf and we can argue over that...
(in other words reimplement
On 2007-02-09 09:18:02 -0800 Wim Oudshoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, I just read part of this discussion. Apparently pkg-config is a
very
popular tool for
finding dependencies etc. Also it seems to be used
by plenty of libraries and people, although I never encountered
it in practice.
Just to chime in... I compiled pkg-config from source a couple of times
and it does need glib.
I haven't been able to work around glib.
Dennis
Wim Oudshoorn wrote:
Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-02-09 09:18:02 -0800 Wim Oudshoorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So next I tried to
So we could have a small makefile fragment, let's call it find-
gnustep.make,
that searches for gnustep-make on disk and sets GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES
to the best
match. I'll write that makefile fragment, and it will be
maintained inside
gnustep-make.
I don't get this one, you want to let
Right, and also, frankly, there's a very important non-technical aspect
to this as well; Way more developers know what the heck .pc files and
pkg-config are, as well as how they work, than a funky GNUstep.conf
file, which, while somewhat self-explanatory, definitely is proprietary.
If we had gnustep-make depend on pkg-config, then you wouldn't be
able to use GNUstep unless you installed pkg-config first.
That's not entirely correct. GNUstep can be taught how to read
pkgconfig-format-file, such as GNUstep.pc, thus eliminating the need
for GNUstep.conf entirely,
Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-01-24 22:05:26 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but my main problem with GNUstep.sh isn't actually technical at all,
its the very first thing potential developers are going to see, so
will be the first impression,
and imho gives the impression of being
On Jan 25, 2007, at 07:15, Nicola Pero wrote:
So we could have a small makefile fragment, let's call it find-
gnustep.make,
that searches for gnustep-make on disk and sets GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES
to the best
match. I'll write that makefile fragment, and it will be
maintained inside
gnustep-make.
On Jan 26, 2007, at 02:58, Nicola Pero wrote:
The other main change is that using GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT,
GNUSTEP_LOCAL_ROOT, etc. in makefiles is now discouraged (because
it won't work with Linux FHS).
I wonder whether those are still useful in an FHS setup (eg let
GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT point
I'm a bit confused by your email. ;-)
I guess it simply shows that most people are not aware of the 'radical'
filesystem-independency plan that we have been working on in gnustep-make and
gnustep-base for the past few years! ;-)
Wouldn't it be possible to change make so that it handles both
On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 22:37 -0800, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
All,
Sorry to chime in so late on this one, RL has kept me quite busy over the
last few weeks. :)
Wouldn't it be possible to change make so that it handles both setups
(i.e. FHS or GNUstep)?This way we could have one
PROTECTED]; gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:58:02 PM
Subject: Re: gnustep-make experiment
Personally I'd prefer to suspend the release until we have an
environment that has a chance of remaining stable. It seems that we
already require -make users to adapt thier projects
On 2007-01-24 22:05:26 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but my main problem with GNUstep.sh isn't actually technical at all,
its the very first thing potential developers are going to see, so
will be
the first impression,
and imho gives the impression of being strange because it
Thanks for your suggestions
You seem to think that the current solution lacks:
1. a way to compile without setting GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES
2. a way to get the GNUstep bundle/libs/tools search paths for use in
configure scripts etc.
I agree we can do better to address those. Solutions that came
On 2007-01-25 06:48:50 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions
You seem to think that the current solution lacks:
1. a way to compile without setting GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES
2. a way to get the GNUstep bundle/libs/tools search paths for use in
configure scripts
Nicola Pero schrieb:
I'd rather spend some time documenting what we already have before we try
working on the next
steps (nobody seems to have a clue about all the new stuff in gnustep-make).
So can we come
back to this in a few weeks ? ;-)
Personally I'd prefer to suspend the release
On Jan 26, 2007, at 24:04, David Ayers wrote:
Personally I'd prefer to suspend the release until we have an
environment that has a chance of remaining stable. It seems that we
already require -make users to adapt thier projects for this
release (I
remeber you cleaning up many projects in SVN)
Personally I'd prefer to suspend the release until we have an
environment that has a chance of remaining stable. It seems that we
already require -make users to adapt thier projects for this release (I
remeber you cleaning up many projects in SVN) and it seems they may need
to adapt again
On 2007-01-24 02:29:36 -0800 Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
attached is just sort of an experiment in getting rid of GNUstep.sh
to
compile stuff
don't know if i expect anything to come out of it really, but figured
i'd
send it
anyways :P
apologies.. there were a number of issues when
attached is just sort of an experiment in getting rid of GNUstep.sh to
compile stuff
If you use trunk, you don't need GNUstep.sh to compile stuff ... ;-)
1. add /usr/GNUstep/System/Library/Libraries and
/usr/GNUstep/Local/Library/Libraries to /etc/ld.so.conf and run ldconfig
2. add
On 2007-01-24 04:17:17 -0800 Nicola Pero
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
attached is just sort of an experiment in getting rid of GNUstep.sh
to
compile stuff
If you use trunk, you don't need GNUstep.sh to compile stuff ... ;-)
1. add /usr/GNUstep/System/Library/Libraries and
On 24 Jan 2007, at 14:10, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-01-24 04:17:17 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com wrote:
attached is just sort of an experiment in getting rid of
GNUstep.sh to compile stuff
If you use trunk, you don't need GNUstep.sh to compile stuff ... ;-)
1. add
On 2007-01-24 06:22:54 -0800 Richard Frith-Macdonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Jan 2007, at 14:10, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-01-24 04:17:17 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com
wrote:
attached is just sort of an experiment in getting rid of
GNUstep.sh to
compile
Richard Frith-Macdonald schrieb:
On 24 Jan 2007, at 14:10, Matt Rice wrote:
On 2007-01-24 04:17:17 -0800 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED]
innovation.com wrote:
attached is just sort of an experiment in getting rid of GNUstep.sh
to compile stuff
If you use trunk, you don't need GNUstep.sh
GDL2 needs to attempt to link to the Gorm libraries to see if it
should enable building of the GDL2 Gorm palette
and in porting aquaterm, and the gnuplot adaptor for aquaterm, it
needs to also look for a lib in the GNUstep heirarchy
to enable that.
There are two solutions to that:
1.
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
