Laurent Gauch wrote: >> >/ we have to make sure the compile step stays as easy as possible on >> />/ Windows as on Linux and Mac ! >> / >> I don't agree. Windows is pretty much a useless development >> environment as-is, > > That's your point of view ... but, for me, this is a user point of > view and not a developer point of view . > my 2c.
It's not about what users like to run (everyone should absolutely use the environment they prefer) - it's about what different systems allow in terms of a development environment, which is required to build source code. The Windows system that we can expect users have access to is an incredibly limited development environment when compared to that of Linux or MacOS X users. This matters when those users want to do development (e.g. compile) of projects. I think that it is important to optimize for users and to optimize for developers, and that these two are very different things. I think it's fine to place more requirements on developers and important to have as few requirements as possible for users. >> and it's not really the task of openocd or any other project to >> work around that. > > As you say, it should not be the task of openocd developers and any other > developer of any other software to play with OS, but having easy build > solution for Multi-OS (Windows / Linux / Mac ...) is a big plus for the > success of an open source project as the openocd. There exists no easy build solution for the Windows systems that users might have access to, because such systems are so limited. This means that working on Windows will always have more requirements. >> MSYS and Cygwin are significantly better environments, and they work >> much like a *ix systems. Big improvement, and many of the same >> methods can be used across all operating systems thanks to them. > > Yes, but do not confuse the "how-to" build and "how-to" use !!! We > build openocd for Windows under Cygwin and then we use openocd > binary on Windows without the need of Cygwin ... Who is "we" ? If the OpenOCD project produces some binaries then I feel strongly that they should be built by MinGW and not using Cygwin. It is fundamental to realise that Cygwin is not Windows. Cygwin is a different system, running on top of Windows. >> >/ This is not the case for the actual external Jim TCL . >> / >> When there's no package management (like on Windows) dependencies >> will always mean that some extra effort and care is required to build >> a package. I don't think this is a reason to keep a copy of all >> dependencies within projects. > > So why jimtcl directory in OpenOCD ? I agree - I think the next step is to remove the jimtcl directory and submodule, and only have a system jimtcl. This is the goal for me, but there's no rush. However, going to the submodule first might make the transition easier, since it divides the change into two steps. //Peter _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
