Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Andrew Rodland
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 03:47 pm, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:52:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > Seriously, I've never come across any system that lacked autoconf > > support AND which a high level language like those that would target > > Parrot, ran on. If you're

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 11:59, Andrew Dougherty wrote: > Both autoconf and metaconfig assume a unix-like environment. Ambitious > plans for parrot's configure include non-unix environments too, such as > VMS and all the ports where perl5 uses a manually-generated config.* > template. autoconf assu

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:52:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > Seriously, I've never come across any system that lacked autoconf > support AND which a high level language like those that would target > Parrot, ran on. If you're referring to the number of systems that have autoconf supports Win3

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Robert Schwebel
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:52:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > Ok, this is probably a moot conversation because Metaconfig > (http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-12/compile_03.html) was written by Larry > Wall for rn, and the Perl community has some serious social inertia when > it comes to switching t

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Andrew Dougherty
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 08:00, Jens Rieks wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote: > > > Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot? > > No, its only available on a few systems. > > Ok, this is probably a moot

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 08:00, Jens Rieks wrote: > On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote: > > Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot? > No, its only available on a few systems. Ok, this is probably a moot conversation because Metaconfig (http://www.linux-ma

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Robert Schwebel
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:00:14PM +0200, Jens Rieks wrote: > On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote: > > Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot? > No, its only available on a few systems. How do you mean that? You surely don't want to run the compiler dir

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-07 Thread Jens Rieks
On Tuesday 07 September 2004 07:52, Robert Schwebel wrote: > Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of parrot? No, its only available on a few systems. Some months ago, I tried to cross compile Parrot to ARM (Zaurus), and to compile Parrot directly on the Zaurus, with no success (mos

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-06 Thread Robert Schwebel
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:26:22AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote: > If I can help testing cross compilation stuff please tell me. > Unfortunately I don't know enough of the Perl/Parrot internals to be > really useful for coding, but anyway. Would autoconf/automake be an option for the C part of par

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-06 Thread Robert Schwebel
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 12:42:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Right now configure.pl pulls a bunch of configuration information > straight out of the current perl configuration. We need to stop that, > and this is as good a time as any. > > If someone could go through and make a list of what inf

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-06 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 18:29, Aaron Sherman wrote: > I think right now that info is all in config/init/data.pl, and it's Scratch that. I was grepping through the tree for "Config{" which turns out to not catch the way %Config is used in most of the tree... I'll have a look and get you the details.

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-06 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 18:29, Aaron Sherman wrote: > On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 12:42, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > If someone could go through and make a list of what info configure.pl > > pulls from perl, I'll start writing (or snagging :) the probing code > > to do it ourselves, so we can be perl-free,

Re: No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-06 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 12:42, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Right now configure.pl pulls a bunch of configuration information > straight out of the current perl configuration. We need to stop that, > and this is as good a time as any. > > If someone could go through and make a list of what info configure

No-C, no programming project: Some configure investigation

2004-09-06 Thread Dan Sugalski
Right now configure.pl pulls a bunch of configuration information straight out of the current perl configuration. We need to stop that, and this is as good a time as any. If someone could go through and make a list of what info configure.pl pulls from perl, I'll start writing (or snagging :) th