Alp,
I agree that you can learn by tutorials and documentation. I certainly
have and it didn't seem that hard to me. In fact, I picked up auto*
faster than I did SCons and whatever that new one was that KDE folks
were using. That said, Richard isn't the only one that is cutting
pieces from
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0500, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
I tried to use CMake last year to be curious, and it failed because of
the lack of documentation. With autotools I discover new tricks every
days, but most of them are just in the documentation that is widely
available (unlike
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:32 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
In this case there is an easy solution. Convert a few GNOME projects
to the new build system and show the result.
Good plan. I've got an old branch of gnome-power-manager building with
waf, and I indend on
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:01 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
Not any rule I know of; but using ./configure; make; make install (be
it with autotools or anything else) is quite useful to be integrated
in JHBuild modulesets.
Sure, agreed. In waf it's just:
waf configure --prefix=/foo/bar/baz
waf
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:32 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
In this case there is an easy solution. Convert a few GNOME projects
to the new build system and show the result.
Good plan. I've got an old branch of gnome-power-manager building with
waf, and I indend on having
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:43 +0100, Matteo Settenvini wrote:
[snip]
we need some proper documentation
explaining how the GNOME stack is built,
jhbuild should take care of building. There is a lot of information
about how to use jhbuild, including solving specific problems on
specific distros.
On 10/11/2007, Rob Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 15:40 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
That said, there is one concern which trumps all others when choosing
a
build system: how easy is it for someone with a plain vanilla
distribution to compile
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:44 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
Totally wrong. I dare you build anything with a barebones linux
install with only a shell and make. You need:
* A C compiler
* Tons and tones of -dev packages
* If you want to compile a fresh SVN/CVS checkout you need
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 11:24:36AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 00:32 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
In this case there is an easy solution. Convert a few GNOME projects
to the new build system and show the result.
Good plan. I've got an old
On 10/11/2007, Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:44 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
Totally wrong. I dare you build anything with a barebones linux
install with only a shell and make. You need:
* A C compiler
* Tons and tones of -dev packages
*
On 10/11/2007, Matteo Settenvini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Il giorno ven, 09/11/2007 alle 16.58 -0600, Jonathon Jongsma ha scritto:
On 11/9/07, Lucas Rocha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Are the current drawbacks of using autotools in GNOME so so so
annoying that it would be really worth the
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
* GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
knowledge of C# or Java
you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you can write
native C# and Java applications.
* Autotools are exceptionally hard
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 13:45 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
Yes, I am aware that Rob was referring to the tarball case. However
you still need a horde of build dependencies probably 95% header files
and then a related set of scripts/tools to build most of the Gnome
stack.
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen schrieb:
POINTS OF ACTION:
Here is a list of proposed actions to address some of the outlined issues.
They are intended not impose excessive work load on module maintainers.
* Write a GObjects for Java/C#
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 13:45 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen a
écrit :
In my ideal world a build system would be completely decoupled from
the implementation - for example like Ant XML with the Java-isms
converted to generic instructions.
Please, not until you can express the equivalent
On Nov 10, 2007 3:42 PM, Emmanuele Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and adding the interpreter for the language du jour is not going to
magically remove those dependencies. in fact, it's going to increase
them because:
1. you will need the interpreter for that language
Seems like python is
On Nov 10, 2007 7:41 AM, Emmanuele Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
* GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
knowledge of C# or Java
you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you can write
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 14:37 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:52 +0100, Daniel Svensson wrote:
waf runs in two steps, first configure,
then build. And I cannot stress enough how fast it is. Zooom! Also
it
has a very nice looks ;)
Yes, I evaluated waf a few months
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 17:20 +0100, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 14:37 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 13:52 +0100, Daniel Svensson wrote:
waf runs in two steps, first configure,
then build. And I cannot stress enough how fast it is. Zooom! Also
it
On Nov 10, 2007 7:27 PM, Ruben Vermeersch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't this what we have the version control system for? How does this
differ from multiple checkouts?
Not sure where you got vcs from. The point here is that a buildsystem
should put diffrent builds in diffrent build
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 19:27 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 17:20 +0100, Nicolas Trangez wrote:
...
Isn't this what we have the version control system for? How does this
differ from multiple checkouts?
- No need to do multiple checkouts
- If you got some local changes
Richard Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 11:01 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
Not any rule I know of; but using ./configure; make; make install (be
it with autotools or anything else) is quite useful to be integrated
in JHBuild modulesets.
Sure, agreed. In waf it's just:
waf
On 10/11/2007, Emmanuele Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
* GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
knowledge of C# or Java
you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you can write
native C#
On 10/11/2007, Sebastian Pölsterl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen schrieb:
POINTS OF ACTION:
Here is a list of proposed actions to address some of the outlined
issues.
They are intended not impose excessive work load
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 14:41 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
* GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have standard
knowledge of C# or Java
you know you don't have to use GObjects with C, right? you can write
On Nov 9, 2007 11:43 PM, Matteo Settenvini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to discuss with you where we could act seriously in this
direction. I've got some comments to make:
It sounds like at this stage some input from people who have found the
learning curve prohibitive might be
hi;
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 23:33 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
On 10/11/2007, Emmanuele Bassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:06 +0100, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
wrote:
* GObjects are conceptually difficult when you have
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 00:37 +, Who wrote:
[snip]
Here are my thoughts:
1. What do you use to code!? What do I need on my system to do
this?--
Coding on Windows makes you soft, especially if you used something
like Visual Studio. There will be a huge number of
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 12:27 +0100, daniel g. siegel wrote:
[snip]
please understand, i dont want to bring up a autotools is bad and it
should die-thread, i just want to use my time to code and not to use
that time and effort on a build system.
It is a fact of life in software development
29 matches
Mail list logo
