Re: gnustep-make experiment

[Matt Rice]

forgot to cc the list on this... and added some stuff


On 2/16/07, Nicola Pero <address@hidden> 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 made to work..

from what I tested, I was able to compile gnustep-base as a fat binary.


> 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 ?


Just tried on mingw, and it fails to compile because of a lack of strsep,
that should be easy to to fix.

> 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: no longer having to worry about
> the location of tools in fat binary dirs when using gnustep-make's own
> tools,

this is expected to be in the PATH, there is no need for that

> cross-compilation issues simplified (and hopefully cleared out at some point
> in the future), and a package that you drop somewhere there is a shell and a
> make system and it just works.  I already told you in private that I don't
> think
> adding back C tools to gnustep-make is a good idea - for me it's like going
> backwards
> in time to a more complicated setup.

I just don't see the point in this, without a c tool we have to
rewrite the same code
in sh, make, c/objc, and csh and have autoconf replace stuff in a ton
of files...
if you add 1 variable you have to modify all these... seems needlessly
complicated
when a c tool would suffice.