[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Axiom-developer] differences wh-sandbox andbuild-improvements

From: Bill Page
Subject: RE: [Axiom-developer] differences wh-sandbox andbuild-improvements
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:28:22 -0400

On April 16, 2007 3:32 AM Gaby wrote:

> I have a functional development environment under windows
> -- cygwin -- but I cannot use it because GCL does not work under
> cygwin

What do you mean that GCL does not work under cygwin? It works
for me. You just can't compile it under cygwin.

> and I have been told on this list that windows people don't
> care about GCL under cygwin.

I think that in general windows people don't care much for
cygwin. period. What it does is foreign to them plus it is a
poor replacement for linux, if linux is what you really want.

> I guess the fact that windows people on this list don't help
> that much to make concrete forward progress is OK.

I think that is typical. Most "windows people" aren't that
interested in application development. According to the Windows
user model that is somebody else's problem. Of course there are
Windows developers, even Windows open source developers but the
ratio of users to developers is much higher for Windows than
linux (perhas by as much as several orders of magnitude).

> Now, I've been trying to set up a reasonable environment for
> working on Axiom with no good result so far and I'm told by
> non-implicative non-accusation that I would be suffering from
> trap known as "linux chauvinism" when nobody knows what I
> think of comparison of linux and windows.

Ok, that was gratuatous on my part, for which I do apologize.
It just turned out that I happened to be reading Nikolai's stuff
when you wrote: "my frustration with windows is only growing"
and it touched a nerve.

> I guess that is fair.

not. sorry.

> And my problems did not go away.  I guess that is forward
> progress.


I could repeat almost word-for-word a similar statement by Tim
Daly concerning svn. It turns out that I can reproduce both of
your problems and I discussed how to solve both of them and
still neither of you are interested. I guess that's progress.


> ...
> > I can reproduce the error that you reported:
> > ...
> > The system cannot find the path specified.
> ... 
> yes.

So install MSYS from pre-packaged components and the problem goes
away. Just because other people get away with using ActivePerl
with minGW doesn't make it a "supported configuration" or good

> >> >
> >> > I recommend that we go to autoconf-2.61 for all Axiom builds.
> >> >
> >>
> >> As long as you prepare and commit all my patches, I'm fine
> >> with that.
> >>
> >
> > Gee, that sounds familiar. Where did I hear that before? Oh,
> > sorry. I forgot. This is the Axiom open source project - the
> > one where each developer chooses there own flavor and version
> > of the basic tools ... I with draw my recommendation. Let's
> > just all continue to do it our own way. ;)
> >
> I believe you got it wrong; even with a smiley.
> There are several "rules" I've developed over the years, while
> maintaining linux boxes, that include:
>   (1) don't mess with "system" tools packaged by linux distros;
>   (2) duplicating tools under /usr/local, sooner or later causes
>       troubles.
>   (3) install system tools under /usr/local only when they solve
>       fundamental problems.

MSYS is not a linux distro by any imagination but I think the same
principle applies. Install MSYS from "standard" components as I
indicated here:

Then build autoconf-2.6x. Install it where ever you like.
> I suspect you'd have much more effective impact at explaining
> me how automake-2.61 fare vis-a-vis the above three rules.

The current MSYS developer package does not contain autoconf-2.6x.
If you think you need at least 2.60 what other choice do you have?
If not revert the autoconf stuff to 2.59. (Waldek is still using
2.59 in wh-sandbox.)

Bill Page.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]