Interesting. I also thought to try something like a "union mount", so that I'll mount the mac directory read-only, and on top of if a union mount on the linux side.
Michael On 13 February 2013 12:30, Gubinelli Massimiliano <m.gubine...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev