No registered users in community xowiki
in last 10 minutes
in last 10 minutes
Re: [Xotcl] XOTcl 1.3.0 available
From: Gustaf Neumann <neumann_at_wu-wien.ac.at>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:33:51 +0200
> I have to learn how to make separate build dirs work, or what the
> prevailing standard is, and make that work, so that people can do
Hi Jim, yes, this is still an issue (see below), it effects only
people configuring the subdirs (e.g. via --with-all or --with-actiweb).
It is not an issue, if the default configuration is used.
> ...
> I would like to ask embedders of xotcl, if there is a chance you'd be
> able to use a tclsh where you do the package require of xotcl and
> other packages you need, rather than use xotclsh and xowish... it's
> been suggested that this might be the more portable approach, but
> I want to ask all of the embedders first before I ask Gustaf whether
> it'd be ok to deprecate them in favor of having the embedders prepare
> a plain tclsh.
Jim, xotclsh and xowish are already deprecated and are not
build by default. Techically there is no need to use xotclsh at all.
Note also, that xotclsh is a tclsh doing a "package req XOTcl" +
"namespace import" from the C-level. This means that if package require
does not work from a tclsh (e.g. due to paths), xotclsh would not
work as well. xotclsh is not used in the build/test/install cycle,
so i don't see the connection the subdir/build issue.
What do you mean by "preparing" a plain tclsh?
i have sent you with a separate mail a slightly updated version
of xotcl, where
mkdir build
cd build
../configure --with-all
make
make test
make install
works. It is still not perfect, since the binaries of the configured subdirs
(sdbm/gdbm/expat) are still built in the source tree, not in the build tree.
maybe you have an idea how to get these into the build tree as well.
best regards
-gustaf
PS: i'll be on vacation for 14 days starting in the mid of next week.
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:33:51 +0200
> I have to learn how to make separate build dirs work, or what the
> prevailing standard is, and make that work, so that people can do
Hi Jim, yes, this is still an issue (see below), it effects only
people configuring the subdirs (e.g. via --with-all or --with-actiweb).
It is not an issue, if the default configuration is used.
> ...
> I would like to ask embedders of xotcl, if there is a chance you'd be
> able to use a tclsh where you do the package require of xotcl and
> other packages you need, rather than use xotclsh and xowish... it's
> been suggested that this might be the more portable approach, but
> I want to ask all of the embedders first before I ask Gustaf whether
> it'd be ok to deprecate them in favor of having the embedders prepare
> a plain tclsh.
Jim, xotclsh and xowish are already deprecated and are not
build by default. Techically there is no need to use xotclsh at all.
Note also, that xotclsh is a tclsh doing a "package req XOTcl" +
"namespace import" from the C-level. This means that if package require
does not work from a tclsh (e.g. due to paths), xotclsh would not
work as well. xotclsh is not used in the build/test/install cycle,
so i don't see the connection the subdir/build issue.
What do you mean by "preparing" a plain tclsh?
i have sent you with a separate mail a slightly updated version
of xotcl, where
mkdir build
cd build
../configure --with-all
make
make test
make install
works. It is still not perfect, since the binaries of the configured subdirs
(sdbm/gdbm/expat) are still built in the source tree, not in the build tree.
maybe you have an idea how to get these into the build tree as well.
best regards
-gustaf
PS: i'll be on vacation for 14 days starting in the mid of next week.
-- Univ.Prof. Dr.Gustaf Neumann Abteilung für Wirtschaftsinformatik und Neue Medien Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Wien