[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Xonotic: gmqcc package review



On Monday 30 September 2013 17:15:12 Anton Balashov wrote:
> Done:
> * I remade the upstream branch. Now it's upstream/master. [1]
> * Made a pull request to upstream about hyphen-used-as-minus-sign
> [2] (already merged).

Great.

> > I would suggest you split the
> > syntax files into another package as a user of the compiler would
> > not necessarily want the syntax files (also, they are arch
> > independent).
> I'm not sure that will be good. Yes, separate arch independent files
> is a good process, but what package it will be? Just one this dir?
> Where I should install it to? As end user, I would expect
> autointegration with my IDE's what I don't plan to do. You got my
> idea :) WDYT?

Each file should be installed to the location described in the 
corresponding README, so that it autointegrates with the IDE.

> >  Also, there is a .tex file doc/specification.tex that
> > 
> > describes the QuakeC language used by gmqcc.  It would be great
> > (but not necessary) if this were compiled and put into a package
> > too.  It could go into the same package as the syntax files.
> 
> Because it's a doc file I deep it should be in the main package.
> Because if user wouldn't install the syntax package, hi will not
> get a docs? :) I'll google what to do with this tex file and will
> add it to the package.

I would expect that the most common use of gmqcc is to *compile* 
QuakeC code.  The syntax files and the pdf produced by the tex file 
would only be useful to someone who wants to *write* QuakeC code.

I would expect that most users are compiling code because they are 
writing their own, but it is possible that this is not the case.  

Ultimately you are free to package this how you like, and since the 
syntax files and pdf are small it will not cause any heartache for 
them to be installed unnecessarily.  It was just a suggestion.

David


Reply to: