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++ » Welcome and lets finish that 2007.1
Re: Linux Makefile(s) [message #8678 is a reply to message #8674] Sat, 24 March 2007 00:44 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 1358
Registered: December 2006
Ultimate Contributor
ebojd wrote on Fri, 23 March 2007 11:41

I took a quick look last night at MPC. My concern with taking adopting this tools is that it looks like there could be license compatibility problems. It does look like a nice exterior package solution though...



From the MPC's License:

"Since MPC is open source and free of licensing fees, you are free to use, modify, and distribute the source code, as long as you include this copyright statement.

In particular, you can use MPC to build proprietary software and are under no obligation to redistribute any of your source code that is built using MPC."

So, no visible restrictions except of a copyright. And you are free to distribute generated files ...

Quote:


If we were going to adopt the use of another tool for this purpose I would recommend also looking at Jam (a cross-platform make replacement) which has an attribute alike as-is license IIRC.

see:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/jam_src/index.html
http://www.perforce.com/jam/jam.html

Just a thought...



There is a big difference between MPC and jam/bjam. jam is a build system like make. It doesn't generate project files of any kind. It builds everything itself. In opposite, MPC doesn't build anything itself. It generates make/project files. Basically, it is a template engine. Main advantage of MPC over other template engines is that it has quite simple and efficient language to describe everything related to organizing of software packages. I wouldn't say MPC is perfect, but it is usable. And it saves a lot of time. Smile

Quote:


So, is this seriously open for discussion, or just exploring? The likely easiest solution is to add scripting to the package organizer, and then it is just replacing the X11, etc., library directives with pkg-config...

EBo --



I've been asked to post a script. Wink

I needed project files for Visual Studio because of a debugger. So, I've made them and shared with others. Smile




Regards,
Novo
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: GCC.bm problems
Next Topic: OK, time to release.... (finally).
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue May 07 16:17:11 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02607 seconds