Le Wednesday 2 March 2005 17:04, Leopold Toetsch a écrit :
blib/lib/libparrot.so => $(LIBDIR)/libparrot.so whatever/file.pmc => $(PARROTLIBDIR)/whatever/file.pmc
Sounds reasonable. What about the icu files?
icu use autotools, maybe let autotools decide, but we should find a way to passe CFLAGS and path to configure.
The configure / make steps are working basically. Installation is the problem. We don't want to overwrite any system ICU files that might be there. I think ICU libs should go to runtime/parrot/lib. But then there's a problem, if parrot is installed or not as paths would differ.
There is a pb here, .so become .dll on windows, binary become binary.exe, ect...
That's all abstracted already: $(SHARE_EXT), $(EXE), ...
For what I understand: Configure.PL + makefile*.in => Makefile Script + MANIFEST => installation process.
Yes.
There is an evident issue here: duplicate and mistmatch code.
Yes. As said, I'd factor out common parts into a perl module.
Why not having only one makefile ?
The root makefile is already big enough. languages/*/Makefile are maintained by their owners. Distinct makefiles for various parts is a good thing.
Why not let make install generated files ?
We've to install on very different platforms. make syntax is quite different. Doing it in perl is just easier IMHO, as all the platform issues are handled by perl itself.
Are Manifest.* very usefull ? those file can be used only by rpm, is the installation process is not here to make the packager works.
MANIFEST is the canonical list of all files. It's essential. MANIFEST.generated is the list of generated items to install and where to install it. Seems to be quite ok.
I just open some questions here.
If I had choice: - do not make MANIFEST.* => rpm packager job
I'd say, first fix "make install", then have a look at rpms.
- adding an install target in Makefile for all file instead having a perl script + fixed lists for installation
Or probably better, just fix the perl script by adding redirections e.g.
'blib/lib' => '$(PARROTLIBDIR)'
leo
