Hi  Chris,

> I would like to move the compile-tools directory into the root of the project 
> and detach it from the rest of the project (So it’s not called from the build 
> if we build the project).

I quickly check current compile-tool, now it is only used by
client-cpp. So is it really necessary to move to the root folder?

> This only needs to be run every now and then if something fundamental changes 
> (Like new OSes or new CPU Architectures).

Yes, I also agree to compile tools ourselves, rather than download
from somewhere.. (and just run once for each operation system.)

> I would like to update that module, so it will not only build an executable, 
> but also package the includes and the libraries for that OS and Architecture

+1.

Best,
-----------------------------------
Xiangdong Huang
School of Software, Tsinghua University

 黄向东
清华大学 软件学院

Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> 于2023年7月28日周五 20:42写道:
>
> Hi,
>
> So, I've been fighting to simplify our use of Thrift, as there were several 
> problems with how we do it today on my M2 Mac (Mostly however to an updated 
> Homebrew, which uses different paths).
>
> While going through the project, I noticed that everything in "protocol" 
> downloads a pre-built executable, which is simply downloaded and run this 
> doesn’t seem to run on Arm64 (new M1 and M2 Macs).
>
> I would like to move the compile-tools directory into the root of the project 
> and detach it from the rest of the project (So it’s not called from the build 
> if we build the project).
>
> This only needs to be run every now and then if something fundamental changes 
> (Like new OSes or new CPU Architectures).
> I would like to update that module, so it will not only build an executable, 
> but also package the includes and the libraries for that OS and Architecture, 
> so we can use that in the client-cpp and the client-cpp-example.
> I'd like to give it a try if we could also use this approach for the libs and 
> completely get rid of the thrift compilation as part of the build.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
>

Reply via email to