i vote for one make systems, one make tools What about a solution where Prev make/tool will be reactivated by a copy and rename solution present in cvs
If all user not switch on new make system and make tools we haven't a good debug 2009/2/17 Viktor Szakáts <[email protected]>: > Hi Francesco, > Could be done. But I expect a long parallel development > if we seriously settle with both. The other thing is that > hbmk.exe is a replacement for hbmk.bat for Windows/DOS > world, not for hbmake.exe, which worked differently. Given > this, maybe it's better to rename it in the GNU make system > to hbmk2. Albeit this isn't precise either, as this makes > life difficult for MinGW users (myself included)... Maybe we > should rename it conditionally for linux/darwin users. I don't > know how to do this though. I'll check. > The so far icy reception of hbmk / silence from Linux > users isn't very reassuring on any of the issues/comments > I've made recently. Yet I think we should clear these up > to create an easier to understand platform in general, > because right now with our two parallel and overlapping > make systems, plus our two parallel and overlapping > make tools isn't good for anyone, especially not for > potential users. In fact it's much worse now with a > second more sophisticated tool and additional file formats. > I think in the case of make tool we can do the integration > without losing any values, and least we should try. My > impression was that this is general need for everyone. > Brgds, > Viktor > _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
