[openbeos-build-team] Re: Jam 2.4 hack

  • From: "David Reid" <dreid@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <openbeos-build-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:16:46 +0100

Hmm, well people should be able to just grab the source and go. We should
try to avoid having too many dependancies on specific versions or tools.
Look at NewOS. To build it you need to use the "special" make he supplies
with it (on beos at least) :(

david

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <openbeos-build-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:02 PM
Subject: [openbeos-build-team] Re: Jam 2.4 hack


>
> > While this is very cool I think we should stick as much as possible
> > to a
> > standard version of Jam if we can.
> >
> > Can you submit the changes to perforce and see if they will roll them
> > in?
>
> I can try, but I don't have much hope. My code uses popen() and I don't
> know, how portable this is. And the second issue is, that when you're
> using the rule you are very likely to do something really unportable,
> which somehow is opposed to the Jam-intrinsic portability idea.
>
> > Either that or we need to put the entire source into the tree and
> > have the
> > first thing done to be build Jam. I guess for that we need a
> > buildconf
> > script or some such...
>
> According to the new directory structure it seems to be intended to
> have Jam lurk in the source tree.
> Including the sources is one thing, but honestly, isn't it a bit off
> track to include building the build tool in the build system. It will
> be a very rare occasion that one will have to build/re-build Jam. So I
> would add two or three lines how to build Jam to the ReadMe and that
> would be it.
>
> CU, Ingo
>
>
>
>


Other related posts: