From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:08:32 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 146 ************************************************** Wednesday 09 July 2003 Number 146 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Stefan Neis 2 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Andreas Buening 3 Re: [EMX] Re: libc : Andreas Buening **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:52:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 05:10:15PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote: > > > a) I know of no issue with 2.8.1 + dmake (but of course, this may be > > > just ignorance). > > > > While I agree, the problem is that whatever new source one adds (e.g. > > Posix/2), it won't be happy with dmake. While mixing two different makes > > is certainly possible, it's also possibly confusing. > > ??? Why adding a couple of new C files would require a change of $MAKE? Personally, I'd like at least seeing Posix/2 being added into libc. That's close to 300 source files ... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:41:10 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:40:15AM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote: [snip] > > Somebody mentioned that the current emx build system should be improved > > if I remember correctly. I haven't looked closely at this, yet. > > If we want to do this we should do it right at the beginning. > > I repeat: > > a) I know of no issue with 2.8.1 + dmake (but of course, this may be > just ignorance). The gcc version is more or less irrelevant as long as we're talking about C, so 2.8.1 is okay. Whether we want dmake should be discussed. > b) I see no reason to do this "in the beginning" (actually, I do not > see any reason to do this at all, if it requires more than man-hour of > work). > > > Of course, it isn't necessary to have a _compatible_ release but > > ??? You probably missed another negative? I see no need for > uncompatible release... I'm sorry. This statement was really misleading. I meant a 100% forward _and_ backward compatible release so that we can be sure that "our" emx release is identical (except bug fixes) to EM's release. Bye, Andreas **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:41:33 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: [EMX] Re: libc Stefan Neis wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 05:10:15PM +0200, Stefan Neis wrote: > > > > a) I know of no issue with 2.8.1 + dmake (but of course, this may be > > > > just ignorance). > > > > > > While I agree, the problem is that whatever new source one adds (e.g. > > > Posix/2), it won't be happy with dmake. While mixing two different makes > > > is certainly possible, it's also possibly confusing. > > > > ??? Why adding a couple of new C files would require a change of $MAKE? > > Personally, I'd like at least seeing Posix/2 being added into libc. That's > close to 300 source files ... I think the absolute number of source files won't be the problem. It depends more on what we want the build system should do. Compile the sources, link the dlls, create the import and static libraries, a reasonable test suite, separation of parts of the libc into several import libraries, create all docs (info, man, inf, html) from one documentation "source" files automatically, support for optional libc feature (e.g. internationalization). The question is can the current build system do this or can it be implemented? If not, then it might be the better decision to create a new build system. Bye, Andreas