Re: [xml] win32 build system
- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- To: Francesco Montorsi <f18m_cpp217828 yahoo it>
- Cc: libxml2 ML <xml gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [xml] win32 build system
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:22:38 -0500
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:55:16PM +0100, Francesco Montorsi wrote:
How much of it is the source, how much of it is generated.
Only two files are templates:
all the other ones are generated using them.
reasonable to me to add a maintain the bakefile source to the archive,
associated with a README explaining how to use this alternate mechanism,
and then anybody willing to use that instead of whatever the default
build is should be able to follow the guideline and use the bakefile.
Ok; I created a simple Readme.txt and I have updated the zip
(always at http://www.geocities.com/f18m_cpp217828/prog/libxml2_win32.zip)
- adding the .zip file to the distribution does not make sense to me
I agree; I meant to say that the contents of the zip could be added... :-)
- nor adding all the generated makefiles
why ? This would make much easier to everyone to use the build system.
Because the official Windows build is Igor's one. Igor takes most of the
Windows issues and problems. If we clearly put a different build out then
people will start push request on him while they use a different build
system. And as I could see, on Windows new build way == new bugs, c.f.
for example the bug the Joel and William have been chasing so far unsuccess-
fully just because they changed a /MD onto /MT on Microsoft compiler.
I want the people who use bakefile to at least have gone though the
readme, the bakefile install, before hitting any potential bug, i.e.
those people can work and debug at least minimally on their own.
If only the templates are given, then before compiling the user should
bakefile, install it and run it.
The size of the BUILD folder is about 317 Kb and I think it wouldn't be a
great problem adding it entirely...
It's less a question of size, and more a question of making sure
people building this way know what they are doing. Bakefile is far from
ubiquitous, I'm fine suggestion it as a solution, but we are not ready
to cope with problems resulting from its use :-)
so if you indicate clearly what the source is, provide a README and
indicate willingness to provide updates, I will add them in a bakefile
subdirectory of the sources.
My project depends on libxml2 and thus I will continue to use it, through
makefiles; so I will continue to keep the bakefile updated and bug-free :-)
To work, the bakefile & all generated makefiles should be put into
a subfolder (the name is not important; I usually use a folder called
If I add those 3 files (libxml2.bkl, bakefiles.bkgen, Readme.txt) I will
put them under "bakefile", build is far too generic.
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
veillard redhat com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
] [Thread Prev