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: Gustaf Neumann <neumann_at_wu-wien.ac.at>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:16:06 +0200
On Saturday 10 April 2004 22:51, Jeff Hobbs wrote:
> 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.
flame down, i know this, we have adressed this. per default,
xotcl creates a file called "xotclsh", which is a tclsh script,
and NOT the binary you are talking about. Do you oppose
as well a tclsh script, having such a name?
> 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.
look at our configure stuff, it has changend substantially
in the last year. I would say, that i have personally invested
over the last year more time into making xotcl's build system
TEA compatible than into xotcl itself. We went through tough
exercises such as building xotcl from outside directoris
% mkdir -p /tmp/xotcl/unix
% cd /tmp/xotcl/unix
% ~/xotcl-1.2.0/unix/configure --with-all
% make
% make test
% make install DESTDIR=/tmp
as a result, xotcl was added to the tcl/tk distro for max OS X (Aqua).
Correct me, if i am wrong, but I got the impression you are taking
about the build system of xotcl, as it was about 2 years ago, and
not about our current stuff.
-gustaf
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:16:06 +0200
On Saturday 10 April 2004 22:51, Jeff Hobbs wrote:
> 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.
flame down, i know this, we have adressed this. per default,
xotcl creates a file called "xotclsh", which is a tclsh script,
and NOT the binary you are talking about. Do you oppose
as well a tclsh script, having such a name?
> 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.
look at our configure stuff, it has changend substantially
in the last year. I would say, that i have personally invested
over the last year more time into making xotcl's build system
TEA compatible than into xotcl itself. We went through tough
exercises such as building xotcl from outside directoris
% mkdir -p /tmp/xotcl/unix
% cd /tmp/xotcl/unix
% ~/xotcl-1.2.0/unix/configure --with-all
% make
% make test
% make install DESTDIR=/tmp
as a result, xotcl was added to the tcl/tk distro for max OS X (Aqua).
Correct me, if i am wrong, but I got the impression you are taking
about the build system of xotcl, as it was about 2 years ago, and
not about our current stuff.
-gustaf
-- Univ.Prof. Dr.Gustaf Neumann Abteilung für Wirtschaftsinformatik WU-Wien, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Wien