Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does Wesnoth currently use also automake ?
Yes.
> > 2. scons is like earth orbit. We may not want to stay there, but most
> > of the work of getting to anywhere *else* in build-system space is getting
> > out of the fierce gravity well of autotools. And that is the real
> > problem we are facing now.
>
> 3. KDE did that too ;-) (first tried to convert to scons, when that didn't
> work, switch to cmake)
And that is how we might end up -- I'm open to the possibility, though
at present I still think I prefer scons.
> > This one is grzywacz's I think. There's some stuff with setting
> > #defines I don't understand, also how to get the link line to work.
>
> Which problem do you have when linking the unit tests ?
The linker seems to think there's no main() function. There is, but
it's in a framework library.
> > The minimum I need here is a detailed directory-by-directory spec of
> > what is supposed to get copied where.
>
> Yes, that would be good.
> Another approach is to install the autotools build somewhere and the other
> build somewhere and diff the two install directories until they contain the
> same files.
Yes, I thought of that. I'd prefer to have a spec, do the comparison, and
correct the spec.
> > 5. Translations handling.
> >
> > The headache I get from trying to unravel data-directory installation
> > is nothing compared to this, from which I run screaming and of which
> > I want no part. We need to have a detailed spec for how this is
> > done just as self-protection, but I would strongly prefer to never
> > even look at it. Ivanovic's again, though Torangan might be helpful.
>
> What is done there ?
I don't know. And I have a strong feeling I don't want to know. :-)
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
