James Vega wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:38:11PM -0800, Philip Prindeville wrote: > >> Gary Johnson wrote: >> >>> On 2008-01-07, Philip Prindeville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, never mind. We'll just skip the updates for now then... Having >>>> multiple tars to unpack just doesn't work well with our build system. >>>> >>>> >>> You only have to fetch and unpack them once per major release, so it >>> shouldn't be a big deal. Everything is configured and built from >>> the top-level configure and make commands. >>> >>> >> Well, it gets worse: Unix vim is bzip2'd, whereas the language and >> extras stuff is gzipped. >> >> Which makes the script to pull down and build the stuff even more >> useless, since packages can only specify one uncompression method, etc... >> > > Wow, this seems like a really inflexible build system. I imagine the > project will run into similar problems in the long run unless the build > system is made a bit more flexible. > > James >
The process that we use is simple and lightweight, and in that it serves our needs. It only falls on its face when we're presented with scenarios that are significantly more complicated than they have to be. For instance, what's the compelling reason for not having the source be in a single tarball? Or for that matter, not packaging all tarballs with the same compression? (I think KISS went out the window at some point here...) -Philip --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
