On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:51:35AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Whether there's a per-platform shell script for the Unices or one > generic one that'll work well enough to bootstrap to the "Use parrot > because it's nicer" phase of the build's up in the air. This way > assumes the user has a command-line prompt of some sort and a C > compiler. One of the big reasons I want a non-make make tool is so we > can teach it to generate these scripts for us from the dependency > lists.
Is my impression correct that nobody has ever tried crosscompiling perl, and that nobody is really interested in doing it in the future? I assume that, if you don't take this into account from the beginning it is not very probable that it will ever work before Perl 7 :-) > Folks doing cross-platform stuff will presumably use the second way. > (I don't think this is too unreasonable :) Ack. > Since I've minimal (which is to say, absolutely no) cross-environment > build experience, this bit's a bit dodgy. For building parrot itself, > I'm assuming we can get away with a configuration file holding all the > info we need to build parrot -- basically everything parrot's > configure will probe for. I'm still not sure what you mean with "probe". When doing cross builds you cannot probe anything in the sense of "run some test code and look at it's output", because (in my scenario) the build process is done on i686, whereas the final code has to run on ARM. So you have to put all the intelligence about which CPU core / plattform / libc / binary format variant has which properties into some predefined magic: definitely something one doesn't want to do without quite a lot of cross compiling experience. > Building the ancillary stuff will be a bit problematic, since to do so > will need parrot, but the parrot you'll have won't run on the platform > you're on. So... I'm kinda at a loss there. I'm *more* than happy to > take suggestions or wholesale direction here. Well, I still don't understand what the _technical_ arguments against autotools are, besides not being written by LW ;) Some pro arguments: - runs on about all available platforms today, configure written in sh - does proper cross compiler handling - c89 handling is no problem - everyone is used to configure/make/make install Robert -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Hornemannstraße 12, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4
