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: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:10:44 -0700
> > 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?
Not really, it's only a bit confusing. I do *prefer* that a
user just knows that they can rely on 'tclsh' and then uses
'package require xotcl'. Note that the xotclsh and xowish
that you build are not actually created +x, which would be
an issue for use (at least not on build, maybe on install).
> 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
...
> 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.
I had no issue with building 1.2 myself in the normal way that
I expect (which is separate source and build dirs). I'm sorry
that using TEA was so time consuming, but the earlier mods
that I sent a year ago to your build system took me only a day
to make. Of course, I ignored anything but the xotcl package
because I believe everything else was "fluff". I think the
xotcl 1.2 general organization is much improved though.
I see in your other message that you have the TEA3 stuff
working well. I'm glad that you also find the less verbosity
helpful - that was a goal. If you want to make a test build
available, I will review it and send comments, but cannot do
that until Thursday or Friday.
One of the reasons to version TEA_INIT was that upgrading
should be easier. However, TEA3 is certainly not "settled".
If there is something you don't like about it, or something
that would make it easier from your point of view, please
tell me. I haven't propagated TEA3 to a lot of extensions
yet, so it's not "fully refined".
Note that the advantage of being "TEA compatible" is that it
is much easier for distros to add you in (like Steffen did,
and we are planning to do in ActiveTcl). It also means that
you worry less about build system portability - let the core
porters worry about that. For example, with the latest TEA
you should be able to make a Win/CE build without any other
code changes (assuming you don't call some evil Windows APIs).
Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy
http://www.ActiveState.com/, a division of Sophos
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:10:44 -0700
> > 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?
Not really, it's only a bit confusing. I do *prefer* that a
user just knows that they can rely on 'tclsh' and then uses
'package require xotcl'. Note that the xotclsh and xowish
that you build are not actually created +x, which would be
an issue for use (at least not on build, maybe on install).
> 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
...
> 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.
I had no issue with building 1.2 myself in the normal way that
I expect (which is separate source and build dirs). I'm sorry
that using TEA was so time consuming, but the earlier mods
that I sent a year ago to your build system took me only a day
to make. Of course, I ignored anything but the xotcl package
because I believe everything else was "fluff". I think the
xotcl 1.2 general organization is much improved though.
I see in your other message that you have the TEA3 stuff
working well. I'm glad that you also find the less verbosity
helpful - that was a goal. If you want to make a test build
available, I will review it and send comments, but cannot do
that until Thursday or Friday.
One of the reasons to version TEA_INIT was that upgrading
should be easier. However, TEA3 is certainly not "settled".
If there is something you don't like about it, or something
that would make it easier from your point of view, please
tell me. I haven't propagated TEA3 to a lot of extensions
yet, so it's not "fully refined".
Note that the advantage of being "TEA compatible" is that it
is much easier for distros to add you in (like Steffen did,
and we are planning to do in ActiveTcl). It also means that
you worry less about build system portability - let the core
porters worry about that. For example, with the latest TEA
you should be able to make a Win/CE build without any other
code changes (assuming you don't call some evil Windows APIs).
Jeff Hobbs, The Tcl Guy
http://www.ActiveState.com/, a division of Sophos