Re Hi :) On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 12:38:00PM +0100, mh@openoffice.org wrote: >> Hope I'll explain managers at work, how build >> system is important for developer, that it is more important then these silly >> internationalization fixes and features, that it will give more attention to >> our company throughout the world, etc, etc, <usual trash that we often say to >> our managers follows>. In this case I'll have more time to work on build >> system. >I fully agree, the build system is very important to developer and this is the reason >for not choosing autotools, autotools is a code destribution system but not a build >system. Yes it does building, but not for developing code but for transfering source >code into a systems structure. I understand that this is perfectly that what is your >interest, but that was never the goal of the OpenOffice.org build system. But I will say, it is a missing feature of the OpenOffice Buildsystem. Sorry, but, OpenOffice is GPL, so Sun-developers should work, with voluntears, on porting the code and enable the transfering to the system strukture. >From my standpoint there are two alternatives: > >1. expanding autotools to a build system. that I would like .... :) >2. expand OOo build system to a code destribution system. >I don't see that approach #2 would be accepted by the community > * because for little project autotools seem to be a reasonable build system > * why switch to another system if there is a working system > => in other words: I don't see the demand in OpenSource for a multiplatform > buildsystem. I disagree. One of the good points of OpenOffice is, it will run on some other arches as M$ Office and on other OS'. We should enforce it. I would like to see openoffice fully integrated into debian, some time in the future. >ehancing the autotools seems the more feasable way to me but it also have IHMO some >clues: > * two macro languages are used: > * the m4 language > * the make syntax > developing code im a macro language get more difficult if the size of the project > grows (It doesn't scale). > * shell programing is needed. I think everybody who has developed sh scripts on > different platform will agree, that it gets difficult if there are coming non > GNU platforms like Solaris, AIX , HP/UX into play. all the tools differs in > implementation and version ( just do a "man sh", "man test" ) on the different > Unix flavors and you see that you have to test autotools script on every platform. ... > to make it short: I dont't see anybody available right now, who is able and get the > time to do ehancements for more features in autotools. What about a build system like XFree? It is similar, but I think more clean ... none of my personal builds from Xfree didn't fail. >> My idea differs from Bernahrd's a little. I know that it is easy for Suners to >> keep it in one big source tree. I'm thinking about making alternative build >> system that does everything that current does (solver, etc.), but based on GNU >> Make and autotools. It will be politically correct, because build systems won't >> interfere with each other, and my will be more flexible. >If we come to a consens that we each accept the weaks of both approaches >discussion will get easier. >What is the definition of a political correct buildsystem: > * has it to be autotools > * or has it just to be (L)GPL. The second .. but it should be easy to understand ... shouldn't it? >I think a comprimise would be that each build system can call each other and has to >be GPL/LGPL. Yeah! Regards Jan -- One time, you all will be emulated by linux! ---- Jan- Hendrik Palic Url:"http://www.billgotchy.de"; E-Mail: "palic@billgotchy.de" -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL++ P+++ L+++ E W++ N+ o+ K- w--- O- M- V- PS++ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5- X+++ R-- tv- b++ DI-- D+++ G+++ e+++ h+ r++ z+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
pgpcnShd5Z_f8.pgp
Description: PGP signature