Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Developing U++ » Releasing U++ » Archlinux AUR (Considering adopting U++ packages)
Re: Archlinux AUR [message #47976 is a reply to message #47955] Sun, 30 April 2017 13:15 Go to previous message
Eremiell is currently offline  Eremiell
Messages: 5
Registered: April 2017
Location: Prague, CZ
Promising Member
So I spent part of yesterday and most of today so far exploring contents of Scripts as well as stuff that comes with src rpm, and while I acknowledge the accomplishments reached, honestly a lot of it feels like somewhat dirty hacks. We all do dirty hacks at times to make stuff happen, but I'd probably prefer a somewhat cleaner way to package stuff. So at the moment, I'll probably prefer the mkfile to the rpm Makefile, which heavily calls bash scripts domake and doinstall to achieve pretty much anything.

One question pops up: did U++ ever consider using a meta build system like cmake or any of the many alternatives? It might clean up and ease the whole building process across platforms a lot. The current state feels in some ways as reinventing wheel. (Not that I haven't been there before.)

I'd really love to support clang as I use both gcc and clang most of the time, as they emit different warnings and catch up different troubles. I'll be looking more into that.

I originally planned to have the first PKGBUILDs yesterday (after not finding time for it on Tuesday), but while it compiles and packages for me without troubles (as it did week ago), I still feel there's more to polish. On top of that I'm leaving Prague in moments for a family event, so the packages will probably come early next week once I get back and do some final cuts to achieve what I'd call minimal sanity level, rereading the packaging guidelines slowly once again (last time) and making sure, it's more or less clean at least on the packaging side. Then I'll release and dig deeper into the ways to build it better.
 
Read Message icon5.gif
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Tarball issues
Next Topic: size unzipped download installation
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Apr 29 17:56:22 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01511 seconds