Hi!
This is an interesting discussion. I think a key question is
whether the style of working with Integrated Development
Environments (IDEs) is compatible with `orthogonal component
based environments'. I tend to think that both are, more or less,
each others opposite.
In first case, I have a on
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:18 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[snip]
> And of course I would be delighted if some of you provided fixes
> for pkg-config and whetever else is needed to make building for
> this setup work better.
The problem with pkg-config is that it relies a lot on POSIXy
developmen
I would like to thank everyone who provided input on this topic.
It certainly helps when considering where to go. One conclusion
from this is that we should get Peter's MSVC support finished
and completed for Automake 1.12 and the next Libtool release.
I wasn't aware that there are more MSVC-rela
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 08:34 +0200, PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote:
> Hello
>
> > I'm certainly quite eager to see this in Automake and Libtool. I
> > suspect this will hit the sweet spot for a lot of autotools users.
>
> the problem I see is that a lot's of peoples relies on pkg-config
> during
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 16:38 -0700, Natalie Tasman wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
> I think this is a great idea and would be interested in hearing your
> plans for moving forward. I've invested a lot of time in an autotools
> build system that works on *nix and mingw (and cross-compiling to
> mingw from li
On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 19:26 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Here's a crazy idea: how about if automake optionally output an input
> file suitable for nmake (after configure substitution)?
> Is that even feasible? (I'd guess so)
> Maybe if we have contents conditional on 'make' or 'nmake' output?
Hi Ralf,
I think this is a great idea and would be interested in hearing your
plans for moving forward. I've invested a lot of time in an autotools
build system that works on *nix and mingw (and cross-compiling to
mingw from linux!) and I do think this would be interesting to see
this work on min
(This bounced the first time I sent it, sorry if it reposts)
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 01:41:29PM -0700, David Byron wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > Here's a crazy idea: how about if automake optionally
> > output an input file suitable for nmake (after configure
>
On 8/1/2010 2:11 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> So let me rephrase the question: if we have the ability to build
> completely with MSVC within a shell environment such as MinGW/MSYS
> would people still need something like nmake support?
Speaking for myself and my projects -- no, I would not.
* Philip Herron wrote on Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 08:05:50PM CEST:
> This sounds amazing on one of my other projects i support a cmake
> build along side my autoconf and automake for everything that isn't
> windows lol.
So let me rephrase the question: if we have the ability to build
completely with M
On 31 July 2010 18:26, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Maybe if we have contents conditional on 'make' or 'nmake' output?
> Would that even help anybody? (no idea)
> Is there anybody willing to work on this?
This sounds amazing on one of my other projects i support a cmake
build along side my autoconf
On Sunday, August 1, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Sure. I have no idea yet how exactly this could work in
> practice. I don't know these tools yet. I'm just
> throwing out these ideas to see if somebody has good
> input.
>
> In such a project, is there any scripting besides CMD that
> one could r
* David Byron wrote on Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 07:25:16PM CEST:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > OK, so what if they are not actually running configure (or
> > would not actually need to)? Presumably automake could
> > produce a ready nmake file (or forbid, a vcproj) in at
>
On Saturday, July 31, 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * David Byron wrote on Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:41:29PM CEST:
>
> > If someone is running autotools (or even a generated
> > configure script) on windows, I think we can assume
> > they've either got cygwin or msys which implies access
> > to m
* David Byron wrote on Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:41:29PM CEST:
> If someone is running
> autotools (or even a generated configure script) on windows, I think we can
> assume they've either got cygwin or msys which implies access to make.
OK, so what if they are not actually running configure (or wou
On Saturday, July 31, 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Here's a crazy idea: how about if automake optionally
> output an input file suitable for nmake (after configure
> substitution)? Is that even feasible? (I'd guess so)
> Maybe if we have contents conditional on 'make' or 'nmake'
> output? Wou
Here's a crazy idea: how about if automake optionally output an input
file suitable for nmake (after configure substitution)?
Is that even feasible? (I'd guess so)
Maybe if we have contents conditional on 'make' or 'nmake' output?
Would that even help anybody? (no idea)
Is there anybody willing t
17 matches
Mail list logo
