[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Axiom-developer] Axiom Conference Call Sept 14, 2006
From: |
Bill Page |
Subject: |
RE: [Axiom-developer] Axiom Conference Call Sept 14, 2006 |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:31:40 -0400 |
Gaby,
On September 14, 2006 5:32 PM you wrote:
>
> Tim Daly writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | 10) There was a discussion of which version (Gold, Silver, or
> | Build-improvements) to choose when trying to port to a system.
> |
> | Tim's take on it was that the question revolves around the
> | issue of whether the system is known to build on the target.
> | If it is known to build then the only issue is whether the
> | new Makefiles in Build-improvement works. If it is not known
> | to build then Gold should be used so we can isolate the
> | Makefile bugs from the source code bugs.
>
> I always thought it is "silver".
>
> I thought build-improvements should die (or be closed) once
> I'm finished.
>
This issue was related to the fact that I recently sent you some
patches for building Axiom on Solaris 10/GNU from the build-
improvement sources. Tim wants to apply these changes to Axiom Gold
sooner rather than waiting for them to tricle through Silver to
Gold.
Tim is also very motivated to produce a successful build of Axiom
on MAC OS/X. I suggested that using the build-improvements branch
to do this port might be easier because of the build from system
GCL option (I also forgot to emphasise the build out-of-source).
But Tim prefers to work with the Gold distribution.
Tim is probably right that my building Solaris with the
build-improvements sources was probably a little pre-mature,
but I just like working with build-improvements so much more
than Gold, that I could not resist... :) And at least in this
little exercise I did not find anything that I would classify
as a Makefile bug.
Regards,
Bill Page.