On Friday 15 July 2005 03:11 pm, Guillaume Laurent wrote:

> > * it builds again some sources (and links the executables again) when you
> > are installing the program as root.
>
> I don't see this problem, but Silvan has also reported it. Thomas suggested
> I update the bksys scripts which I haven't done yet.

It seems to me it only happens on the *first* run on a clean source, and doing 
a scons configure&&scons&&scons install as opposed to a scons&&scons install 
seems to circumvent it.   Being root or not has nothing to do with it as far 
as I can tell, and I haven't seen it happen after the first time in a virgin 
tree.  It's annoying, but avoidable, and not a deal breaker so long as my 
trick for avoiding the second build actually does work consistently.

> > * it has not support for the targets package-merge and package-messages
> > to keep up to date the pot/po files.

> It's there in the current bksys versions.

How does this really work?  I haven't sat down to study it, so all I have is a 
fake hack impression.

Thomas gives you new bksys.  You put it in our local directories.  Doing this 
shit cans all of our custom compile switch and install stuff.  We have to 
merge our own stuff back into the build system.

Is that it in a nutshell?  That seems to be how it worked last time.  I dug 
into the "scons stuff" (bksys or whateverthehell it is) to go add some build 
option that it turned out Chris had already added, and you had destroyed when 
you took the newest stuff from Thomas.

This doesn't seem very maintainable.

> autoconf has never worked that well, and people have been using the scons
> build system for quite a while now.

Autoconf is a pain in the ass, and I can't count how many times I've had to go 
dick around to get RG building right again.  My experience with scons has 
been a lot more positive overall.  It finds the right bits, makes the right 
choices, and pretty much just works.  (My biggest challenge with it has been 
remembering not to type "make" anymore.)

Anyway, my personal vote is that it's fine with me to dump autohork completely 
and just move forward with scons.  We can sort out any remaining problems 
more easily than we can continue to maintain two parallel build systems.

If there is a lot of grumbling to the contrary, then I think we should 
consider leaving autospew around just for the next release, and then dumping 
it permanently thereafter.  But that's mostly only if we can't bring Pedro 
around, and/or someone besides Pedro jumps on the save autopuke bandwagon.

-- 
Michael McIntyre  ----   Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek;  registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel

Reply via email to