sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:56:19 -0700
Quoting Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>:
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:08:29PM -0700, Jason Flatt wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 May 2004 10:40 am, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd really prefer a flag in DETAILS saying on which architectures the
> spell
> > > works.
> > > Making arch specific grimoires makes the whole thing a lot more
> > > complicated, especially thinking about the future with more than the
> > > current x86 and ppc archs. E.g. if a spell work on x86 and ppc, but not
> > > on sparc and arm, we'd need to maintain two seperate version of the
> > > spell (one for ppc, one for x86), with a flag we'd just mark the spell
> > > working on x86 and ppc and maintain it in one place.
> >
> > And, of course, adding any possibly special or different files that need
> > to
> be
> > processed depending on the architecture.
>
> Yes, although for most autotool based software it will be the same, and
> for many others it could be handled with a switch in the BUILD file.
So, perhaps an ARCHS flag?
ARCHS="x86 ppc ppc64 sparc sparc64 etc."
With the architectures specified being ones that this spell works on? Then we
can put architecture-specific checks in BUILD (or other files, much like the
linux spell does) to do any architecture-specific options.
-sandalle
--
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
-
[SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Robin Cook, 05/12/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, ruskie, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Seth Alan Woolley, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Andrew, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Arjan Bouter, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Paul Mahon, 05/13/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Andrew, 05/13/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Jose Bernardo Silva, 05/13/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.