Re: [Chicken-users] CMake tarballs

[felix winkelmann]

On 7/31/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Oh, damn. Yes, of course you where talking about tarballs. I should
pay more attention.

Is there *some* way to have a single tarball layout? In what directories
do you need to put the files? I don't want different tarballs for different
build tools, that's silly. So we have to make them equivalent and
distribute a single one.


cheers,
felix


--
http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8081/blog/blog.ssp