Re: [anjuta-devel] autoconf issue, maybe better to create new project backend for AVR plugins (based on a standard makefile)?

[Sébastien Granjoux <seb sfo free fr>]

Hi Lucas,


Le 15/08/2011 21:20, Lucas van Dijk a écrit :
> Now the configure dialog finally works, there's another issue, this time
> with the configure.ac <http://configure.ac> script and/or the
> Makefile.am. But when I run ./configure, in Anjuta or in terminal, the
> CFLAGS in the resulting Makefile won't change, when I run ./configure
> the following way:
>
> ./configure CFLAGS='--mmcu=atmega168 -O1'

I don't fully understand the issue. If you need to set some CFLAGS in 
anjuta you need to add to the configure command line 
'CFLAGS=--mmcu=atmega168 -O1'. The quotes are needed to avoid splitting 
value in the middle.


> By the way, I'm starting to think that using autotools for avr-gcc isn't
> really the right option. In the future I also want to add AVR Assembly
> support, and I think it won't be easy to use autotools for that, and
> I've been thinking for some alternative.

I don't think it's really a problem to support AVR assembly with autotools.


> I thought of copying the makefile project backend, make it a new plugin,
> modify it a bit so it only shows 2 targets (C sources, Assembly
> sources), create a nice project properties window where you can enter
> MCU type, CPU frequency, etc, and I think the overall user experience
> will be a lot better, in comparison with hacking all sorts of
> configuration things in existing dialogs.

I have thought about the same idea a few years ago but Naba was against 
this options because it means that you have a kind of anjuta project 
format. Someone using another IDE cannot really work on such project and 
you cannot use Anjuta to work on a valid makefile project not compliant 
with this format. I'm agree that it is much easier to write and provide 
a nice interface for the user. We haven't chosen this solution though.

Then, perhaps we can consider that AVR projects are quite small and 
collaboration is less important or consider that most of the AVR 
projects are using these templates and use this solution. But I would 
prefer to have a solution using a standard makefile even if the most 
complex cases are not fully supported.

Anyway, I think you still have to hack existing dialogs because all user 
interface is provided by the project manager and I think it's much 
better to keep at least this plugin.


Regards,

Sébastien