Richard Purdie wrote: > The problem is everyone has a different expectation of a development > environment. Some want an IDE, some want their own editor, some just > want a shell prompt. The trick is finding something that can please the > most people.
Indeed :-) The thing is that, at the end of the day, the common denominator for almost everything is a Makefile. So that seems to be a good point to make that switch in a way that's transparent to most of the developers. No matter how great OE is, the less I need to worry about it when I only need its services, but don't intend to change its shape, the better. > I'd love to see the meta-toolchain environment script expanded to add a > shell function which has the right configure options in it! That's probably a good approach. I was thinking more in terms of documentation, but "executable documentation" is great to have for many reasons. > With Poky we've simply said we'll only deal with autotool'd packages > since they're at least predictable even if you dislike autotools. The > IDE can generate dummy boilerplate so its not that bad from an app > developer perspective. I think insisting on replacing the build scripts of the code I'm working on would already be one step too aggressive. If a package cross-compiles without a fight, or if it's easy to adjust, the cross-build environment shouldn't try to impose its own style. I haven't noticed our meta-toolchain-derived toolchain doing anything like this, so the direction looks good to me so far. > For reference I wrote meta-toolchain in a effort to show that OE can > ease the development environment side of things and your comments above > show it really does work :). Indeed it does. Thanks ! ;-) - Werner
