Hi all, On 12 Feb 2013, at 22:45, Michael Lachmann <lachm...@eva.mpg.de> wrote:
> On 12 February 2013 12:17, Miguel de Benito Delgado > <m.debenit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I use Parallels, which I find considerably superior to VirtualBox, under >> MacOS at least. It's more stable, integrates perfectly with the system, has >> "coherence" mode which is very handy, and many other things which just make >> it better. It's not free, though. >> > Virtualbox works fine for me (and it is free). I use mainly to test Ubuntu and sometimes Windows. For Windows you can set up quite easily a cross-dev environment in Linux or Mac using MXE (http://mxe.cc) On the Mac I compile myself all the library needed (from gmp to qt) without relying in MacPort or similar. You find the necessary material in misc/tm-devel-mac (is based on the makefiles for MXE). > If we're already talking about virtual images. > > I can mount my TeXmacs svn directory from linux, or use it from OSX. > For now, to build the version for the respective platform, I do a full > switch... make clean; configure, make; make install > It would be nice if I could switch more easily between platforms. I > could have two separate source trees, but then it wouldn't be as easy > to make sure they are synced. > > It is somehow possible to compile for two different platforms on the > same source tree? the makefile does not support out-of-place builds. Some times ago I wrote an incomplete patch to support this style of compilation but it is non-trivial to suppport correctly the make process for the plugins: a better separation of the platform dependent files and the sources would be needed. So the patch remained in the limbo. I still have it on some of my machines but I'm not sure it is up to date. Now I just check out different trees or use a local git repository as Miguel suggested. I agree that for development a better out-of-place build support would be needed. best max ps: if you are interested I attach it to the mail but I didn't applied it since 2 years or so some maybe it requires some tweaking.
out-of-place.patch
Description: Binary data
> Probably not.. I guess one would have to keep the configure results > separate, all objects and all binaries. > But maybe... > so, is it possible? > Thanks! > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
_______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev