Re: [Chicken-users] CMake tarballs

[Brandon J. Van Every]

felix winkelmann wrote:
> On 7/29/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Since CMake is capable of generating its own tarballs, I'd like to put
> > one up on the Chicken webpage.  It is important for people to start
> > trying the build.  I believe it is now either beta quality or close 
> > to it.
> >
> > Come the next release of Chicken, it doesn't make much sense to
> > distribute the CMake stuff together with the ./configure stuff.  They
> > each do the tarball in a different way, and I'm not going to try to make
> > them do it the same way.  So that means that during a long transition
> > period, we'd have 2 different tarball distributions, until people become
> > confident in the CMake build.
>
> Sorry, but why do we need two different kinds of binary distributions?

This seems to be confusing the issue.  I thought the parlance was, a 
Chicken tarball is not a binary, it is a source tree with .c files that 
does not require Chicken in order to build it.  The CMake build has this 
capability now.  However, it generates a different tarball than 
./configure does.  It doesn't put .c files in the same places; this is 
necessary to support CMake's two-stage bootstrapping and 
out-of-directory build capabilities.

Windows VC++ is the only platform on the Chicken homepage that has a 
binary.  I suppose some other binaries are lurking about in the form of 
Linux distros.  Don't know if anyone has taken on the Cygwin distro.  
MinGW is a valid binary target, quite apart from VC++.  Whether 
distributed as binary or a source tarball, currently only CMake can 
build it.  Building the VC++ binary with CMake would also be wise if it 
works, as it would allow us to get rid of the makefile.vc build.

I thought it would be sensible to distribute different tarballs since 
they have different capabilities.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every