[sword-devel] portability

[Daniel Glassey]

On 14 Jan 2001, at 14:26, Martin Gruner sent forth the message:

> Why not change the whole make system to autoconf/automake? We use it in 
> bibletime, and IMO it makes maintaining more easy. Probably it would make 
> porting sword / building on different architectures more easy?

autoconf is fine. I tried automake before, but it is very messy when 
you have lots of sub and sub-sub directories in the source tree. The 
current build system works fine apart from autoconfiguration which 
is what autoconf is for, so it's probably best to say "if it ain't broke, 
don't fix it".

> Maybe the sword cvs package should be split into (1) core lib and 
> documentation (used by other projects), (2) module making and misc tools and (3)
> apps (sword for windows and other apps). Maybe a new package could be set up for
> module development. (or package 2 extended for this use)

This I would like to see though. The apps/windoze directory is over 
5MB and is pretty irrelevant for linux develpment. Bibletime, the KDE 
frontend is in a seperate cvs archive, maybe the windows frontend 
should be the same? Same for diatheke.
(2) is probably useful in the main archive unless, as you say, a new 
package is set up for module dev.

Daniel



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com