Am Freitag, 16. Juni 2006 23:42 schrieb Christian Ohm: > On Friday, 16 June 2006 at 22:33, Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > Damn, still no agreement, but a whole new system I haven't even heard > > > of before... > The question is: What about if > they come back? Will they accept a new system? Dunno... Will they come back?
> > Just got a complete dislike of autotools after trying to modify the > > configure.ac and this svn-revision inclusion stuff... :( > > Oh, I could live perfectly without autoconf, but there is no established > alternative (the pragmatism again). > > But there are two features that are not widely used but which people > might find useful in autoconf: Cross-compiling, and the ability to > use a build directory different from the source tree. That's mainly > useful in cross-compiling, you can have the builds for different > architectures in different directories, without the need to copy the > whole source tree. All other uses are quite obscure, the only one I can > think of right now is having the source tree on a read-only medium. waf uses a build dir by default, I even think this is required (but you could set the build dir to the source dir). With that waf also supports a read-only source tree. What I don't exactly know is if it supports cross-compiling. There is currently no tool for that, but I think you could try to implement it. (Using uname -m on Linux, dunno on MinGW) > That leaves the question of cross-compiling: Do we need it? Does waf > support it (it didn't look like it did)? It's not essential, but might > be useful: to compile a Windows version on Linux, or a 32-bit version on > a 64-bit system. At least we could add a configure switch "--x86_64" or something. --Dennis
pgputzczoRiHm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
