Hi all,
A bit late to the party, I've been (and still am) very busy lately!
What a nice surprise! Carsten, that's a very good idea, I agree and support
the move to a single tree!
Actually, what do you think about having one tree for core libs and one for
toolkits like glib and gtk having separate
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 05:14:21 -0500 Youness Alaoui
kakar...@kakaroto.homelinux.net wrote:
progress bar, etc... Yes, autofoo is bad, but we all know it and love
it..
I suspect a lot of us hate it, I do.
--
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 05:14:21 -0500 Youness Alaoui
kakar...@kakaroto.homelinux.net said:
Hi all,
A bit late to the party, I've been (and still am) very busy lately!
What a nice surprise! Carsten, that's a very good idea, I agree and support
the move to a single tree!
Actually, what do you
On 12/13/2011 04:31 PM, Vincent Torri wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Vincent Torrivincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
Wow, this is interesting poll.
I marked both git and svn because I use both for real.
I accept any tools that are working well.
But from my experience, git is superior to svn and really helpful to developer.
So I prefer git :)
Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Leif
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Juyung Seo seojuyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, this is interesting poll.
I marked both git and svn because I use both for real.
I accept any tools that are working well.
But from my experience, git is superior to svn and really helpful to
developer.
So
2011/12/14 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr:
No, don't do that ! We were happily trolling on cmake and you try to
divert the troll from it by focusing people on git. Now people will
start to argue again about git...
Every one, back to cmake troll ! Please forget about this minor things
called
On 12/14/2011 04:33 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Juyung Seoseojuyu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wow, this is interesting poll.
I marked both git and svn because I use both for real.
I accept any tools that are working well.
But from my experience, git is superior
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Juyung Seo seojuyu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wow, this is interesting poll.
I marked both git and svn because I use both for real.
I accept any tools that are working well.
But from
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Leif Middelschulte
leif.middelschu...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/13 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
+1
You are getting to much social :-)
Could we also move to cmake?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:43:00 +0100 Mathieu Taillefumier
mathieu.taillefum...@free.fr said:
On 12/14/2011 04:33 PM, Cedric BAIL wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Juyung Seoseojuyu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Wow, this is interesting poll.
I marked both git and svn because I use both
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:40:16 -0200 Iván Briano (Sachiel)
sachi...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/14 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr:
No, don't do that ! We were happily trolling on cmake and you try to
divert the troll from it by focusing people on git. Now people will
start to argue again about
Yeah, time to break our svn again ! :-D
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we are going
to make a single build and source tree for efl. that means core efl. that
means
1 configure
+1
Could we also move to cmake? How about git? I can have people to help with
both. We did the webkit EFL cmake in short time, can do for EFL as well.
Thanks for taking this long due change!
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:38:38 +0100 Guillaume Friloux
guillaume.fril...@asp64.com said:
On 13/12/2011 06:43, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:02:00 +1000 David Seikel onef...@gmail.com said:
Will this mean that, for example my embedded project that only
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:28:04 +0100 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
Yeah, time to break our svn again ! :-D
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we are
going to make a single
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:13:45 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
Could we also move to cmake? How about git? I can have people to help
with both. We did the webkit EFL cmake in short time, can do for EFL
as well.
I could help with cmake as well.
Personally I'd
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
+1
You are getting to much social :-)
Could we also move to cmake? How about git? I can have people to help with
both. We did the webkit EFL cmake in short time, can do for EFL as well.
Thanks for
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:28:04 +0100 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
Yeah, time to break our svn again ! :-D
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
ok - this 10
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:13:45 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
+1
Could we also move to cmake? How about git? I can have people to help with
cmake - no. despite how much i may hate autofoo... it's here and works and is
a devil we and many know. git - not currently,
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:37:35 +0100 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:28:04 +0100 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
Yeah, time to break our svn again ! :-D
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011
On 13/12/11 11:13, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
+1
Could we also move to cmake? How about git? I can have people to help with
both. We did the webkit EFL cmake in short time, can do for EFL as well.
As raster said, autofoo is a beast we all know and can handle. I'm not
very much against
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:37:35 +0100 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:28:04 +0100 Cedric BAIL
On 13/12/11 11:51, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
If we have cmake in parallel and it works, what
are the chances we get it as the official?
I think you first need to prove people why we want to move. What are the
advantages? disadvantages? Why would we care? and etc... Then, after
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:51:52 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:13:45 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
+1
Could we also move to
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:55:47 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
For libefl it's better to link all lib$X.a into a single so. In that sense
the amalgamation is doable.
well with a single build tree.. we could potentially produce a single libefl.so
and just make
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:54:29 +0200 Tom Hacohen
tom.haco...@partner.samsung.com said:
On 13/12/11 11:13, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
+1
Could we also move to cmake? How about git? I can have people to help with
both. We did the webkit EFL cmake in short time, can do for EFL as well.
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@partner.samsung.com
wrote:
On 13/12/11 11:51, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
If we have cmake in parallel and it works, what
are the chances we get it as the official?
I think you first need to prove people why we want to move. What are
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:51:52 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:13:45 -0200 Gustavo
On 13/12/11 12:09, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
Cmake is a single simple language that generates native build infra.
That alone justifies the change.
Autofoo is m4 that I know, but very few people know about. Then there is
shell, make and automate extensions.
Cmake is very simple and
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Tom Hacohen tom.haco...@partner.samsung.com
wrote:
On 13/12/11 12:09, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
Cmake is a single simple language that generates native build infra.
That alone justifies the change.
Autofoo is m4 that I know, but very few people know
is a big plus.
I have been using both automake and cmake on Linux. Not many problems with
either of them so far. I will follow the crowd on this one :)
--- Original Message ---
Sender : Carsten Haitzlerras...@rasterman.com
Date : Dec 13, 2011 19:02 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: [E-devel] new
On 13/12/11 12:27, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
Biggest drawbacks are:
- being new and requiring people to change
- lack of builtin distcheck
For distcheck there is cpack + ctest, but it need some tweaking.
Cool.
Important thing I forgot to mention: I support the switch to CMake, I
just
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:16:08 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
i want gerrit. if we are using git then gerrit is a must. i want it. our
existing managament infra has to work via git too - that means for
example our
devs dir management. website - on commit updates
: Dec 13, 2011 19:02 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: [E-devel] new build tree for efl.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:51:52 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:13:45 -0200
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:16:08 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
i want gerrit. if we are using git then gerrit is a must. i want it.
our
existing managament infra has to work via git too -
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:43:00 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:16:08 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
i want gerrit. if we are using
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:43:00 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:16:08 -0200 Gustavo
On 13/12/11 12:53, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
That is simple, alternatively we can cut off your fingers or copy
distcheck's code from Autofoo ;-)
How hard is implementing that anyway? Sounds fairly trivial.
--
Tom
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:53:06 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
that's reasonable... just remember... the only way you're taking make
distcheck
from me is by prying it out of my cold dead fingers! make distcheck will
keep
autofoo alive and its going away over my
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:02:30 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:53:06 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
that's reasonable... just remember... the only way you're taking
make
distcheck
from me is by
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, David Seikel onef...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:02:30 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:53:06 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
that's reasonable... just
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:46:41 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi said:
i'm going to wear cast iron gloves damnit! :)
Makes it hard to type. I predict a slow down in your code, IRC, and
email output.
He is a 2 finger typer, that won't make a difference for him.
2
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:28:04 +0100 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr said:
Yeah, time to break our svn again ! :-D
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
ok - this 10
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
+1
Could we also move to cmake?
thjere is no interest in having both buid systems, except pain. cmake
is in addition less powerful than the autotools
Now, i play the dictator game: If cmake is added, i
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
+1
Could we also move to cmake?
thjere is no interest in having both buid systems, except pain. cmake
is in addition less
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
+1
Could we also move to cmake?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Gustavo
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:28:23 -0200
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tuesday, December 13,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Michael Blumenkrantz
michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:28:23 -0200
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
I would actually like you to answer that question: why moving to cmake
if the autotools are already doing the job correctly ?
Doing it correctly may not be enough.
you didn't answer to that question. you
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Michael Blumenkrantz
michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are really set on using cmake, write and maintain a cmake build system
alongside the autotools system for a bit IMO. Then we can make an accurate
comparison where everyone knows the differences.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
I would actually like you to answer that question: why moving to cmake
if the autotools are already doing the job correctly ?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
I would actually like you to
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Gustavo
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM,
2011/12/13 Cedric BAIL cedric.b...@free.fr:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
+1
You are getting to much social :-)
Could we also move to cmake? How about git? I can have people to help with
both. We did the webkit EFL cmake in short
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.comwrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we are
going
to make a single build and source tree for efl. that means core efl. that
means
1 configure script for all. 1 base makefile tree.
On 13/12/11 20:21, Luis Felipe Strano Moraes wrote:
Not trying to derail the thread into something related to the original
topic, but is there a tentative date for such change?
How will it be done?
I believe it'll wait until the move to git as that move will already
shuffle everything
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Tom Hacohen t...@stosb.com wrote:
On 13/12/11 20:21, Luis Felipe Strano Moraes wrote:
Not trying to derail the thread into something related to the original
topic, but is there a tentative date for such change?
How will it be done?
I believe it'll wait
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Tom Hacohen t...@stosb.com wrote:
On 13/12/11 20:47, Luis Felipe Strano Moraes wrote:
Hmm, I might be a bit overdosing in caffeine right now, but from what I
understood this was to be done prior to the release of E17, and the move
to git will be after this
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Gustavo
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Gustavo
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
barbi...@profusion.mobi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM,
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we are going
to make a single build and source tree for efl. that means core efl. that means
1 configure script for all. 1 base makefile tree. something like:
efl
efl/src
efl/src/evas/...
efl/src/eina/...
efl/src/edje/...
...
we
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:32:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we
are going to make a single build and source tree for efl. that means
core efl. that means 1 configure script for all. 1 base
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:02:00 +1000 David Seikel onef...@gmail.com said:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:32:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we
are going to make a single build and source tree for
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:02 AM, David Seikel onef...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:32:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
Personally I think it should still be split a little further. eina eet
evas ecore embryo edje is good for embedded work that
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we are going
to make a single build and source tree for efl. that means core efl. that
means
1 configure script for all. 1 base makefile tree.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:47:09 +0100 Vincent Torri
vincent.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler
ras...@rasterman.com wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we
are going to make a single build and source tree for efl. that
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:47:09 +0100 Vincent Torri vincent.to...@gmail.com said:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM, Carsten Haitzler ras...@rasterman.com
wrote:
ok - this 10 gazillion separate libraries is just not managable. we are
going to make a single build and source tree for efl. that
71 matches
Mail list logo
