Karsten Ohme wrote:
Ludovic Rousseau wrote:

On 4/26/05, Karsten Ohme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ludovic Rousseau schrieb:

Hmm! Maybe the separation between pure pcsc and libmusclecard was not
a good idea after all. They have too many source files in common.

Should we go back and have only one source archive as we had before 1.2.9-beta7?



Well, it is quite logical how it is now.



Yes, it is logical but not really practical.


It is reasonable that the
functionality of libmusclecard and and pcsclite is quite different. The
only difference for Windows systems is that some of the header files
must be available as prerequisites.



This is also true for Unix, not just Windows. But the Unix header files are already installed in /usr/include/PCSC/ if pcsc-lite is already installed.


If this is mentioned, this is
enough. But indeed also some sources files (I believe the tokenparser.c,
maybe some more ... ) which in Unix are part of the pcsclite library,
are necessary.



I plan to reorganise the source code to have something like: - pcsc-lite/src/ : pcsc API source code as it is now - pcsc-lite/libmusclecard/ : libmusclecard source code

libmusclecard will:
- use some header files from pcsc-lite/src/ and pcsc-lite/src/PCSC/
using the -I../src preprocessor directive. I imagine it is possible to
do the same with a Windows proprocesseor/compiler


Yes, should support each C compiler.

- use some source files from pcsc-lite/src/ using correct rules in
Makefile.am. I also imagine it is possible to do that with a Windows
compilation project.


This sounds like a autoconf/automake/make approach also for Windows?
I hope all this programs also exist for Windows ... I can make a try. I the beginning I tried cygwin, but it didn't compile. This would mean that under both systems everything could be build the same way. Would be great ...

No. Seems to be to difficult. Nothing is working.
In the libmusclecard packe is no documentation. In the REDAMe is nothing important mentioned and the files INSTALL and reconf could be usable, but cygwin complains:


$ ./INSTALL
./configure: not found
make: Nothing to be done for `install'.

because there is no configure

and reconf

$ ./reconf
if [ -e Makefile ]
then
        make distclean
fi

# use with --install --force when autoconf/automake/libtool change
autoreconf --verbose $@
autoreconf: Entering directory `.'
autoreconf: configure.in: not using Gettext
autoreconf: running: aclocal  --output=aclocal.m4t
Can't find /usr/autotool/devel/bin/aclocal
autoreconf: aclocal failed with exit status: 1

There is a missconfiguration of cygwin. The maintainer has not taken enough care for it.

When this missconfiguration is solved:

$ ./reconf --install --force
if [ -e Makefile ]
then
        make distclean
fi

# use with --install --force when autoconf/automake/libtool change
autoreconf --verbose $@
autoreconf: Entering directory `.'
autoreconf: configure.in: not using Gettext
autoreconf: running: aclocal --force
autoreconf: configure.in: tracing
autoreconf: running: libtoolize --copy --force
autoreconf: running: /usr/autotool/devel/bin/autoconf --force
configure.in:39: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_ERROR
      If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
      See the Autoconf documentation.
configure.in:41: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_MSG_WARN
autoreconf: /usr/autotool/devel/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1

Maybe the autoconf 2.59 or automake is to old. It is 1.9.2.

The Windows stuff of GnuW32 does not work, because you cant invoke perl script like executables in Windows. If it is called with the interpreter there are some missconfigurations, e.g. the tmp directory is expected to be /tmp and some shared files are expected in c:\progra~1\... which is not true.

I will install cywin new, maybe this will solve some problems.

Bye, Karsten




Would this proposition be acceptable for the Windows developpers/users?

Regards,


_______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle

_______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle

Reply via email to