Re: gnustep-make experiment

[Matt Rice]

On 2007-01-25 06:48:50 -0800 Nicola Pero 
<address@hidden> 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 etc.
>
> I agree we can do better to address those.  Solutions that came to 
> mind as 
> natural ones would be to --
>
> 1. have a (trivial) makefile fragment that locates gnustep-make and 
> you can 
> include in your project to make it bootstrap without having to rely 
> on 
> GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES being set (I suppose we should also
> consider just putting it into your make include path).

true, this could be something similar to what i put in gnustep.make

GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES ?= $(shell pkg-config --variable makefiles gnustep)
include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/common.make

this should actually work with older installations of gnustep.

the whole make bootstrap path thing that is admittedly just a hack
but "include gnustep.make" was easier to remember than adding the 
above,
shell snippet if adding some new line to makefiles is acceptable i'd 
be completely fine with that.

maybe thats not what you meant though, its another idea anyhow...

> I was now feeling like jumping in and implementing all that, but it 
> will 
> likely be a few
> iterations and discussions before we get something good and stable, 
> and if 
> we're trying to make a release in the next few weeks, it's not the 
> right time 
> to add new stuff.

I most definately agree on this

> 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 ? 
> ;-)

Sure, thanks for hearing me out :D