Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 13 June 2008 03:29:52 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Rob Landley wrote: He recently converted Battle for Wesnoth to use something called scons as its build system, Battle of Wesnoth is currently converted to both Scons and CMake, and in the end they will

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:12:00 you wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:06 +0200, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Why on earth does someone need this explicitly during the build? If you have portable software, all of that should be hidden in the code and use sizeof(int). From the developer

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday 14 June 2008 01:19:32 you wrote: ... I still don't understand why all the scons, cmakes and jams out there don't even try to provide the *standard* user interface everyone is used to on a unix system. For cmake: CMake has a cache, where the values of variables are stored, e.g. if

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Friday 13 June 2008 16:51:19 Enrico Weigelt wrote: ... That's why I prefer an purely descriptive paragidm (= subset of delcarative, but practically no logic): a buildfile should only describe the package's structure (eg.: i have some executable foo which consists of source [...] and imports

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 16 June 2008 01:12:41 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Robert Schwebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi, Instead of hacking around and inventing new things, you should have spent your time for improving libtool ... No, not with libtool. I do not want to support that insane approach of

Re: cross-compiling alternatives

2008-06-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 16 June 2008 10:28:30 Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 10:02 +0200, Alexander Neundorf wrote: [...] Seriously, why is a wrapper for the compiler/linker required AT ALL if the calls to these tools are made from _generated_ files ? AFAIU the motivation of libtool

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 16 June 2008 13:39:46 you wrote: ... If you're going to rewrite Autotools using GNU Make, why not ask if another tool would be better, perhaps a tool specially designed for the job? Go ahead. The first part of going ahead is to brainstorm and find ideas and likely

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 15:46:36 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Monday 16 June 2008 17:15:37 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: CMake has a cache, where the values of variables are stored, e.g. if an option

Re: prevalence of C++ in embedded linux?

2008-07-29 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 09:40:20 Marco Stornelli wrote: Robert P. J. Day ha scritto: just curious -- how many folks are working in C++ in their embedded linux work? rday -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-embedded in the body of a message to [EMAIL

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 12 January 2009 11:22:47 you wrote: ... entire environment, QEMU allows it nicely with distcc at a reasonable speed. (Albeit there is no distconfigure, but that's entirely an unrelated tanget of muck and despair and rants against configure, but we're not going there...) I'd be