No registered users in community xowiki
in last 10 minutes
in last 10 minutes
Re: Oops (was Re: [Xotcl] Bug: make install step tries to perform chmod on xowish even if not configured to build [PATCH])
From: Jeff Hobbs <jeffh_at_ActiveState.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:51:45 -0700
Gustaf Neumann wrote:
> i get the impression you are fixing things that are not broken
> in the general distribution. The configure stuff is
> defined to produces always a file xotclsh or xowish, no
> matter whether you compile with or without --with-xotclsh.
This is just plain wrong. Drop the mega-binary idea. It is
dead, dead, dead, dead. Tcl has had a very good dll mechanism
for 7 years - all extensions should use it. So IMO Jim is
fixing a configure system that *is* broken, at its very core
design. You can do so much more with a pure extension, that
should always be the default.
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:51:45 -0700
Gustaf Neumann wrote:
> i get the impression you are fixing things that are not broken
> in the general distribution. The configure stuff is
> defined to produces always a file xotclsh or xowish, no
> matter whether you compile with or without --with-xotclsh.
This is just plain wrong. Drop the mega-binary idea. It is
dead, dead, dead, dead. Tcl has had a very good dll mechanism
for 7 years - all extensions should use it. So IMO Jim is
fixing a configure system that *is* broken, at its very core
design. You can do so much more with a pure extension, that
should always be the default.
--
Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy
http://www.ActiveState.com/, a division of Sophos