On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Eric e...@deptj.eu wrote:
On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi Richard,
I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of
experience
trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling.
You are very
Worked great for me on two Ubuntu machines. One mildly unusual thing, make
install uses mv to put the binary in /usr/local/bin. Normally I think
autoconf generated Makefiles will use install or a sh script to emulated
install and keeps the executable in the build dir. Probably no big deal but
why
On 10/07/2011, at 6:28 AM, Richard Hipp wrote:On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Eric e...@deptj.eu wrote:
On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi Richard,
I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of
experience
trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not
On 10/07/2011, at 7:26 AM, Matt Welland wrote:
Worked great for me on two Ubuntu machines. One mildly unusual thing, make
install uses mv to put the binary in /usr/local/bin. Normally I think
autoconf generated Makefiles will use install or a sh script to emulated
install and keeps the
On 07/07/2011, at 2:22 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
As an end user this appears to the best alternative I've seen so far. The
fact that autosetup presents a familiar ./configure make interface is
fantastic - if it really works as advertised.
Does the cross compilation really work? I'd really
On 07/07/2011, at 3:03 PM, Stephan Beal wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Steve Bennett ste...@workware.net.au wrote:
On 07/07/2011, at 2:22 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
Does the cross compilation really work?
...
$ ./configure --host=mips-unknown-nto-qnx6.5.0
Host
Has anyone looked at cmake? A lot of projects have switched from autoconf
to cmake (MySQL, KDE, Blender, Wireshark, ...).
Bill
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:15 AM, paolo lulli plu...@gmail.com wrote:
What about a try with 'autoproject' to give a start ?
Regards,
P.
--
www.lulli.net
On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:08 , Bill Burdick wrote:
Has anyone looked at cmake? A lot of projects have switched from autoconf
to cmake (MySQL, KDE, Blender, Wireshark, ...).
Read the thread to see why cmake was already rejected.
Kind regards,
Remigiusz Modrzejewski
On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi Richard,
I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of
experience
trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling.
You are very much not alone. See http://msteveb.github.com/autosetup/why/
Not
On 07/07/2011, at 7:30 AM, Eric wrote:
On Wed, July 6, 2011 6:11 am, Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi Richard,
I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of
experience
trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling.
You are very much not alone. See
As an end user this appears to the best alternative I've seen so far. The
fact that autosetup presents a familiar ./configure make interface is
fantastic - if it really works as advertised.
Does the cross compilation really work? I'd really like to put fossil on my
n900 but I don't want to set
Hi Richard,
I really dislike autoconf - a feeling cultivated through years of experience
trying to use it. And I think I'm probably not alone in that feeling.
You are very much not alone. See http://msteveb.github.com/autosetup/why/
I've
tried to avoid having to use autoconf in Fossil and
On 14 June 2011 15:57, Stephan Beal sgb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build script
that runs on any unix machine without special software installed, then that
will be
*A Modest Proposal*
*
*
The problems with the auto* tools are myriad and well-documented in the grey
hairs and bald pates of many a poor soul who's had to put them to use.
Other environments suggested -- CMake, QMake, Jam, et al -- suffer from
assorted platform problems including (but not limited
On 16.06.2011 14:32, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelkasmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build
script?
Though I think autoconf is also necessary (for use by people who do not have
cmake installed) I
Will the move to autoconf remove ability to build fossil for Windows through
MinGW and will make us install MSVC?
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Altu Faltu altufa...@mail.com wrote:
Will the move to autoconf remove ability to build fossil for Windows
through MinGW and will make us install MSVC?
No. Those capabilities are retained. There will be separate makefiles for
windows. autoconf is used on
Oh. Good to know. But then are there chances of makefile and autoconf not
staying in sync... I request MinGW too be part of requirement.
- Original Message -
From: Richard Hipp
Sent: 06/17/11 08:07 AM
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer
On 15 June 2011 07:55, Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
All of these alternative build systems are a PITA on one system or another.
If it requires jam, cmake or anything that requires installing prerequisites
9 times out of 10 I won't even try that software unless there is a binary
On 09:59 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
For fossil you could keep the files generated by autoconf (not the
./configure step but the initialization step) checked in. Then it is
just ./configure make install on most systems. For anything weird
(e.g. windows) provide a Makefile.win32 or similar.
On 15 June 2011 09:47, Twylite twyl...@crypt.co.za wrote:
On 09:59 PM, Matt Welland wrote:
For fossil you could keep the files generated by autoconf (not the
./configure step but the initialization step) checked in. Then it is
just ./configure make install on most systems. For anything weird
On 15 June 2011 08:37, Alexander Vladimirov id...@idkfa.org.ru wrote:
how abouth this: http://buildconf.brlcad.org
A script like that is standard part of many autotoolized projects. In
fact, most people can't build an autotoolized project (other than
release tarballs with pre-generated configure
Hello Graeme,
On 2011-06-15 11:04, Graeme Gill wrote:
Michal Suchanek wrote:
Autotools can be installed and operated on Windows like most other
build configuration systems.
I'm not sure that's possible without installing a UNIX like shell
and set of tools. This is rather foreign for a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:03:03AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
So, I'm asking for volunteers for people with better autoconf-foo than me,
to put together an autoconf/automake setup for Fossil. If you are good with
autoconf/automake, please consider contributing your expertise to the
project.
On 15 Jun 2011, at 16:28, Andres Perera andre...@zoho.com wrote:
i (now) prefer autotools because i spent some time getting
comfortable with m4
Yes, I think failure to understand m4, or failure to realise that it
needs to be understood, is one reason why people end up disliking
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:55:18 -0700
Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf
is sh.
Not quite true. The problem is that, while every system has a /bin/sh,
different systems use different shells for that: most (but not
Le 2011-06-15 à 19:07, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org a écrit :
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:55:18 -0700
Matt Welland estifo...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf
is sh.
Not quite true. The problem is that, while every system has a /bin/sh,
On 09:59 PM, Nathaniel R. Reindl wrote:
Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build
script?
The GNU autotools have a lot of traction in the community, and a wide
variety of people are familiar with them. This makes a compelling
case alone for adopting the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build script
that runs on any unix machine without special software installed, then that
will be fine. CMake does not qualify because it is not installed by
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa g...@atmarama.netwrote:
What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable?
Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. But it is not installed on the
OpenBSD 4.7 system that I use for testing. Perhaps in a few more years
Python will have
actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake
and libtool to your system as well.
2011/6/14 Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa g...@atmarama.net
wrote:
What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable?
Python is on my
On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:37 , Richard Hipp wrote:
What about Python dependency? Is it acceptable?
Python is on my iMac and my Linux desktop. But it is not installed on the
OpenBSD 4.7 system that I use for testing. Perhaps in a few more years
Python will have become sufficiently universal
On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:45 , Alexander Vladimirov wrote:
actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake
and libtool to your system as well.
Yeah, that's for the developers. But users just need to run the Bourne shell
configure script.
Kind regards,
Remigiusz
On Jun 14, 2011, at 13:45 , Alexander Vladimirov wrote:
actually autoconf requires GNU M4, and somehow tends to bring automake
and libtool to your system as well.
Yeah, that's for the developers. But users just need to run the Bourne shell
configure script.
As an intermediate
2011-06-14 01:27 keltezéssel, Richard Hipp írta:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka smh...@gmail.com
mailto:smh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a
CMake-based build script?
ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac
On Jun 14, 2011, at 14:06 , Ben Summers wrote:
As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname -s into
the Makefile might be a way to get going?
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=configure-make
autotools are a bit of a nightmare, and possibly overkill for
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Williams, Brian
bwilli...@informatica.comwrote:
Has anyone thrown themselves on this grenade yet?
If not, I can take a look at autoconf.
If you haven't already got any grey hairs then you'll have some soon.
Good luck!
--
- stephan beal
, 2011 7:12 AM
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Needed: volunteer to autoconf Fossil
On Jun 14, 2011, at 14:06 , Ben Summers wrote:
As an intermediate stage, a simple script to put the output of uname
-s into the Makefile might be a way to get going?
http
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
Surely the autoconf for Fossil won't be to hard? All it needs to do is
check for a couple of libraries and set a few options based on --with-X
flags.
In my experience, it's not getting the project set up which is
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:27:49 -0400
Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka smh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build
script?
ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac nor my SuSE
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 05:42:49PM +0200, Stephan Beal wrote:
Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in
static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a
couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i
can't
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:37:06 -0400
David Slocombe sloco...@vex.net wrote:
But autotools should come first as it both supports the above and
goes at least a long way to helping all the other folks who aren't
plugged into some Linux distribution's binary package system.
Is autotools the only
Stephan Beal wrote:
Another suggestion nobody has made yet: jam. It can be distributed in
static-binary form directly with the source tree (i've seen this done in a
couple projects, and i know it can build on some rather obscure systems). i
can't personally speak for jam's usability - read
All of these alternative build systems are a PITA on one system or another.
If it requires jam, cmake or anything that requires installing prerequisites
9 times out of 10 I won't even try that software unless there is a binary
install available somewhere or a pre-assembled Makefile.
I thought
(4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to
https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL
This point is not easy to acomplish. Take into acount the following
statement in the previous page:
You've written your own source control for this
just my 2 cents..
maybe premake4 could make a sense?
quoting their site (http://industriousone.com/what-premake):
Premake is a plain old C application, distributed as a single
executable file. It is small, weighing in at around 200K. It does not
require any additional libraries or runtimes to be
On Jun 13, 2011, at 16:03 , Richard Hipp wrote:
(4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to
https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL
Does this imply introduction of properly numbered releases? ;)
Your project does not do versioned
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Ramon Ribó ram...@compassis.com wrote:
(4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to
https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL
This point is not easy to acomplish. Take into acount the following
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Remigiusz Modrzejewski l...@maxnet.org.pl
wrote:
On Jun 13, 2011, at 16:03 , Richard Hipp wrote:
(4) The result should have a 0 Fail-Score according to
https://www.theopensourceway.org/wiki/How_to_tell_if_a_FLOSS_project_is_doomed_to_FAIL
Does this
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Steve Havelka smh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build
script?
The GNU autotools have a lot of traction in the community, and a wide
variety of people are familiar with them. This makes a compelling
case
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka smh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build
script?
ccmake is not installed by default on either my iMac nor my SuSE Linux
desktop. So it a a non-starter.
If you have a way other than
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:27:49 -0400
Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
If you have a way other than autoconf to generate a universal build
script that runs on any unix machine without special software
installed, then that will be fine. CMake does not qualify because it
is not installed by
52 matches
Mail list logo
