[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject:
My own issues with the uWin makefiles
From: Steven Stadnicki ####@####.#### Date: 9 Oct 2000 03:21:10 -0000 Message-Id: <39E13A37.FCAF2C6@equator.com> Hey there! I hope this doesn't come off too negative, as even though I've been fairly active in trying to get uWindows ported to our platform (the MAP-1000 and MAP-CA media processors) I haven't had much cause to post to the mailing list. I've got to concur with Jason Gaiser in this; the makefiles seem unnecessarily clunky. In particular, considering how complex they are there's a remarkable lack of flexibility in what to build (as far as I can tell): you can 'make default' if you want to make just the libs, but once the libs have been built there's no way that I can discern of building individual demos, and no way of building all the demos; the top level makefile doesn't have targets for the demos and the makefile in the demos directory itself requires the inclusion of the top-level makefile for all of its defines. I'm trying to integrate the Microwindows codebase with our own CVS hierarchy and build-tree structure and this is just playing havoc with it. I'd certainly be glad to try and help in hashing out a cleaner scheme, though I'm unfortunately far from an expert in makefiles. Steven Stadnicki Equator Technologies, Inc. ####@####.#### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[<<] [<] Page 1 of 1 [>] [>>] |