> Eric and I discussed this recently. We think the easiest path forward
> is to try to remove build systems incrementally. Each build system we
> remove makes it easier to hack on the project because you have one
> less build system to worry about. The easiest build system to remove
> is probabl
Hi Maciej,
On Aug 13, 2010, at 12:34 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> Are there currently any plans for simplifying the situation regarding build
>> systems? I haven't seen any threads for a while, which I assume means no.
>>
>> Is there
On Aug 12, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> Are there currently any plans for simplifying the situation regarding build
> systems? I haven't seen any threads for a while, which I assume means no.
>
> Is there any low hanging fruit out there? Since many of the build systems
> are littl
An added benefit of removing the VS build system first would be that we'd be
able to build using VS2005 or VS2008.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> Eric and I discussed this recently. We think the easiest path forward
> is to try to remove build systems incrementally. Each
Eric and I discussed this recently. We think the easiest path forward
is to try to remove build systems incrementally. Each build system we
remove makes it easier to hack on the project because you have one
less build system to worry about. The easiest build system to remove
is probably the Visu
Hi Jeremy,
On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:18 AM, David Kilzer wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Dumitru Daniliuc wrote:
>
> > i completely agree with jeremy. is it possible to at least drop the cryptic
> > hashcodes/timestamps? without them, t
Let me re-iterate (because even some co-workers are getting confused): I'm
not secretly trying to get the mac port to start using GYP. (Or saying it's
a bad idea either, mind you.) I'm just concerned that the process
associated with adding a file (or adding a dependency between projects on
the ma
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:18 AM, David Kilzer wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Dumitru Daniliuc wrote:
>
> > i completely agree with jeremy. is it possible to at least drop the
> cryptic hashcodes/timestamps? without them, the .xcodeproj files should at
> least be editable by hand.
>
> Does
On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Dumitru Daniliuc wrote:
> i completely agree with jeremy. is it possible to at least drop the cryptic
> hashcodes/timestamps? without them, the .xcodeproj files should at least be
> editable by hand.
Doesn't gyp already generate Xcode projects for Chrome? I think
>
> In addition, has anyone ever looked at simplifying the mac port's xcode
> project? It's _by far_ the heaviest burden on the project given that you
> pretty much need to use xcode (which is mac only...no other port requires
> this), exported linker symbols are in a separate file, extra effort t
Are there currently any plans for simplifying the situation regarding build
systems? I haven't seen any threads for a while, which I assume means no.
Is there any low hanging fruit out there? Since many of the build systems
are little more than lists of files, it really seems like we should be a
11 matches
Mail list logo
