>> C:\harbour\bin\bld.bat, bld_b32,bld_os2,bld_vc >> Why not having a unique build tool with same name And internal use >> Hb_compiler=bcc32 > >We have about this as batch files (not perfect, >but convenient enough for Harbour development). >Everything else can be developed, all it takes >is someone interested enough to do it. Will remain a bath but without bld_b32,bld_os2,bld_vc If Hb_compiler=bcc32 Bld_b32 If Hb_compiler=vc Bld_b32 Endif The advantage is that is possible describe how compile a sample Independent from c compiler that you using Hbbld instead bld_b32,bld_vc,bld_os2
>> Will bld.bat copied in c:\harbour\bin\b32 where I have path? >It won't, as this dir is an temporary place, not >a final destination. 'make_*.bat install' is copying >the binaries to final destination, which you can freely >specify, or - if you don't - this will be /lib, /bin. I suggest only have a binary build for bin\b32\hbbld.bat istead bin\bld_b32.bat, bin\vc\hbbld.bat instead bin\bld_vc.bat ecc. >> Will bld.bat revritten as prg be a based for hbmk,hblin,hbcc ? >As far as I'm concerned: no. >If anything, I'd rather reduce the number of make >systems used in Harbour, than adding new ones. >hbmake is still a good candidate for a replacement, hough. Reducing the number of make system is a very good idea Having same syntax for different platform / c compiler _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
