On Jul 4, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Alexander Wagner wrote: > Garth Corral wrote: > > Hi! > >> There's been some talk recently of removing crafty from the tree. >> I think I can carve out a few moments this holiday weekend to >> finish up the OS X makefile stuff and it makes a difference >> whether I have to deal with crafty or not. Anyone know what the >> plan is in this regard? > > Current cvs does _NOT_ require crafty anymore and in fact > crafty's source was also removed from the cvs. I support > leaving out crafty of scid for some reasons: > This suits me just fine.
> - crafty's build is a bit strange, one can indeed have a lot > of fun if one is not by chance using the same system as > Bob. Though crafty's makefile lists a lot of platforms I > know from my own experience that it needs tweaking at > almost every version. There're some compiler switches and > issues, or to put it more politely: crafty uses very much > of "optimised code". > Yes, this is what was making things difficult for the darwin makefile (building universal binary, anyway). > - There are actually some stronger free engines. > Indeed. I've been pleased with the choices. At the moment, I'm particularly pleased with Glaurung of the free choices. But I'm really liking Hiarcs of the commercial engines because when I play it at reduced strength (because I suck, you know) it still plays an enjoyable game. > - It is another engine to be packed. IMHO Scid should not > contain any engine at all but if it has to, it should be > the bare minimum. As Toga is used for the trainings stuff > and Phalanx is required as well, we already have two > engines that need to be there for scid to work. > I have been of the same view as you, Alexander. I like to build/ install the engines separately, but I understand the dependency on toga/phalanx for some features of scid. At lease those aren't terribly finicky about how they're built. > The first two points are IMHO the most crucial ones. The > licensing stuff is very important as we surely want to bring > back scid as _the_ default chess database and in fact _the_ > default chess program for Unix. Making it easy for the > distributions of whatever flavour to package it is IMHO an > important step. Additonally, to fiddle out at every stage > how to set the compiler... And even if you fiddled it out > for gcc 2.95 you have to fiddle again for 3.0 and 3.1 and > 4.0 and 4.1 and ... Its really a mess. (E.g. I switched to > using icc for crafty cause there are not that much changes > in icc and Bob is using it resulting in the makefile to be > ok. At least on Linux x86*.) > Okay, cool. I will fix up the darwin makefiles to not build or bundle crafty. This will simplify things. Thanks for the info. Garth ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Scid-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
