On November 11, 2003 05:53 am, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Sounds good enough. The question was about the Makefile, though. I don't know the build system, unfortunately, so I don't even know if it has the necessary basis for this.
It has no basis for it, I guess we'll just need to create different targets in the Makefile.in. Maybe by default we should build the Winelib app, and be build the PE one only when invoked explicitly: make winetests.exe
- How to derive/give the cleaning rules?
What cleaning rules?
In the Makefile, again. That's why I added the PROGRAMS = winetests.c winetests.rc ... hack to the Makefile.
What about just addding a new clean:: target.
Thanks, got it. Not sure... Presently, the output simply stays in the log file (it's not deleted). It got rid of the shell dependencies for now.
Yes, but I'm not that sure it's a good trade. I think the shell idea was a good first-order approximation. I'd rather get winetests in the tree with the shell dependency, get your scripts integrated into WineHQ, get people to test, etc. (that is, there is a lot more work to be done to have the full circle completed), and worry about getting rid of it only after that. The advantage is that by the time people will be using the program, and we'll have a much better idea what they want, so we don't waste time coding on theoretical ideas only. Time to market is of the essence (and it's not a bad idea to begin with).