Home » Developing U++ » Releasing U++ » Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8690 is a reply to message #8687] |
Sat, 24 March 2007 18:48   |
|
luzr wrote on Sat, 24 March 2007 12:05 |
* "Glossy theme bug in Ubuntu", Daniel, do you experience it after recompiling? (I do not 
|
You were right about the old version of ide. I will check the new one ASAP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8759 is a reply to message #8758] |
Thu, 29 March 2007 14:51   |
 |
mirek
Messages: 14255 Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
ebojd wrote on Thu, 29 March 2007 08:31 |
ummm... well...
just trying to be helpful. Hope I did not offend or insult. *that* was not my intent.
BTW, do you keep a single copy of the source in /usr/share/upp (or similar), or do you also have a copy of the source in ~/upp/uppsrc, ~/upp/Common, etc.? It was the latter which cam back to byte me.
EBo --
|
Well, I have sources on FAT32 partition, so that I can use the same files for both Win32 and Linux. On Linux, it is something like /media/sda5/uppsrc...
I almost always use "actual" version of U++ for everything, including my commercial apps.
Mirek
|
|
|
|
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8765 is a reply to message #8762] |
Thu, 29 March 2007 17:38   |
 |
mirek
Messages: 14255 Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
ebojd wrote on Thu, 29 March 2007 10:01 |
How do you deal with user side applications which require specific versions of u++ source?
|
Special version of U++? Why?
Well, one thing is perhaps relevant - U++ development was for quite a long time "bussines app driven" - U++ was simply extended to satisfy demands of our customers.
Also, sometimes we refactor interface. Usually, this means fixing all applications, and yes, it is a bit annoying, but that is the price of perfection (and hopefuly, this will not happen too much in future).
BTW, "uppsrc" has more packages than you see in normal release. Many of them are "backward compatibility", some of them experimental or supporting some specific application (or simply not stable and refined enough).
Mirek
|
|
|
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8770 is a reply to message #8765] |
Thu, 29 March 2007 17:53  |
ebojd
Messages: 225 Registered: January 2007 Location: USA
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
luzr wrote on Thu, 29 March 2007 10:38 |
Special version of U++? Why?
Well, one thing is perhaps relevant - U++ development was for quite a long time "bussines app driven" - U++ was simply extended to satisfy demands of our customers.
Also, sometimes we refactor interface. Usually, this means fixing all applications, and yes, it is a bit annoying, but that is the price of perfection (and hopefuly, this will not happen too much in future).
BTW, "uppsrc" has more packages than you see in normal release. Many of them are "backward compatibility", some of them experimental or supporting some specific application (or simply not stable and refined enough).
Mirek
|
When I ran into the problem of my code compiling libraries from ~/upp/uppsrc/* instead of the new ones in /usr/share/upp/uppsrc/* I got to thinking about why having a seperate copy would be necessary or useful. The most obvious would be for long term application maintenance, by bundling the library code. I had not realized (when I first ran u++) what the implications of having a copy of uppsrc, etc., made to ~/upp/. After thinking about it a little while I realized that library versions could be managed similar to how portage deals with multiple versions of libraries using slots, and they can be compiled against specific revisions of the source...
Hmmm... I just realized that this discussion is in releasing u++ and not in the coffee corner where I intended to keep it. How does one move a discussion to a different forum?
Anyway, thanks for the great work, the discussion, and putting up with my ramblings whilst I learn the system.
EBo --
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 25 12:36:46 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01126 seconds
|