Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Keep it Simple Stupid. A Makefile that has options settible
by editing with a text editor, and a nice readme file that tells
what all the settible options are, is infinitely superior than
all the configure crap. That is all that the RPM and ports
creators want from you. A
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 01:14:48AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
: WHY?
:
--8<--
:
: You don't need an install script. Whomever is building the RPM
: or whomever is creating the FreeBSD port has their own ideas of
: where they want things to be installed and has no interest in
: interfe
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jonathon
> McKitrick
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:53 PM
> To: Matthias Buelow
> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: BSD equivalents of autoconf, auto
On 2004-12-17 23:52, Jonathon McKitrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : system? Autoconf (and automake/libtool) was, as originally
> : intended, designed to ease cross-platform portability.
>
> I'm starting to wonder. But if I want to work on my new project at
> home, I'll need to come up with som
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 06:51:06PM +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote:
: Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
:
: >This is exactly what I needed. I wanted to experiment with building,
: >installing, linking, and the same with my own test 'libraries.' It looks
: >like this is much easier than autoconf.
:
: Why d
One of the reasons I have been asking this is I will be spearheading a side
project at work to port a device driver (a library, really) from Win32 to
Linux.
I *really* don't want to use Linux to write this. Since it's really just
going to be a shared library that talks to a serial port, most of
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 06:51:06PM +0100, Matthias Buelow wrote:
: Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
:
: >This is exactly what I needed. I wanted to experiment with building,
: >installing, linking, and the same with my own test 'libraries.' It looks
: >like this is much easier than autoconf.
:
: Why d
Jonathon McKitrick wrote:
This is exactly what I needed. I wanted to experiment with building,
installing, linking, and the same with my own test 'libraries.' It looks
like this is much easier than autoconf.
Why do you want to use autoconf at all, if you want to build on only one
system? Autoco
On 2004-11-18 16:59, Jonathon McKitrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 06:32:21PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> : The minimal Makefile for building a program in FreeBSD looks something
> : like this:
> :
> : PROG= foo
> :
> : .include
> :
> : I can't even begin
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 06:32:21PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
: The minimal Makefile for building a program in FreeBSD looks something
: like this:
:
: PROG= foo
:
: .include
:
: I can't even begin to describe all the 'make magic' that is hidden in
: /usr/share/mk/*.mk, but
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:32:21 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-11-18 10:18, "Conrad J. Sabatier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:05:31 +, Jonathon McKitrick
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm starting to dabble in these self-contained sel
On 2004-11-18 10:18, "Conrad J. Sabatier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:05:31 +, Jonathon McKitrick
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm starting to dabble in these self-contained self-building
> > scripts and tools and so on, like automake, autoconf, libtool,
> > and so o
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:05:31 +, Jonathon McKitrick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm starting to dabble in these self-contained self-building scripts
> and tools and so on, like automake, autoconf, libtool, and so on.
>
> Are these the preferred way of doing things on FreeBSD, or is there a
13 matches
Mail list logo
