On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:45:37AM -0500, Brian S. Julin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Nicolas Souchu wrote:
> > Would we need the heavy libtool environment then?
>
> Probably.
>
> > Wouldn't it be wise to have
> > a separate distribution for embedded systems?
>
> What, and double the maintainance effort? If integrating into
> the automake system isn't for you, then it would probably be
> better to just have a build script that bypasses the configure
> step and makes it's own makefiles and builds just the targets
> the embedded box needs.
Over the existing source tree? Actually there should a tree of sources
and various trees of Makefile/objects: one for Unix OSes and another
for embedded systems. The one for Unix would use automake, the other
would not. But both would share the same set of files.
>
> > What makes the power of GGI today is more it's distribution package,
> > implementation or interfaces and design? The last I think.
>
> Both are equally important... IMO
No, otherwise I would have been rapidly discouraged by it while porting
to FreeBSD. automake, configure, threads here and there, reentrancy and
dlopens do not help.
Nicholas
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alc�ve - Open Source Software Engineer - http://www.alcove.fr
