On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Viktor Szakáts > Probably those hb* aliases will stay (for a while), with content > converted to wrappers to hbmk2. This is the least concern > of the whole bunch IMO, it's three files.
Ok, but before change them we need to test hbmk2 in a public release. > That's true but so far let's admit it, it was a huge PITA to start > with Harbour. Sure, I've always said that we need to reach sth near to ./configure, make, make install. > Besides minor files laying around which are less important, my > two (three) main concerns are: > 1) Current parallel make systems: We should dump non-GNU. Of course. I've always said that gnu-make should have been marked as required like were flex and bison. IMHO using different make utilities and batch files has been a huge waste of resources. > 2) Current parallel Harbour make tool: We should keep only one. Ok, but for 1.1 we should keep hb* scripts as they are, since we don't know if hbmk2 covers all cases. > +1) As few "satellite" so called "helper" (which are IMO only > helping a few ppl and confusing lots of others) batches/scripts > as possible. Agree, but as above but we need time to test hbmk2 ( for we I mean the community ). > That's the goal. If we can provide backward compatibility for > major issues, and if we can do it without major impact on > implementing new stuff, or creating big confusion / additional > maintenance nightmare, _we should do it_, but not for any price. I repeat: backward compatibility should be kept between consecutive releases to help ppl to work in parallel with a stable version and a development one. After a release has been out for months, and the changes have been announced, we are free to change everything. best regards, Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
