Re: large open-source packages
From: Mohun Biswas (m.biswas_at_invalid.addr)
Date: 05/27/04
- Next message: Doug McIntyre: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Previous message: Jens.Toerring_at_physik.fu-berlin.de: "Re: large open-source packages"
- In reply to: Jens.Toerring_at_physik.fu-berlin.de: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Next in thread: Doug McIntyre: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Reply: Doug McIntyre: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 02:25:43 GMT
Jens.Toerring@physik.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> It's not as large as Perl etc. but I had to go to quite some lengths
> to make make do what I want it to do (e.g. makefiles getting created
> from templates during the make process and then invoked, shell scrip-
> ting within makefiles etc.) But I don't know if that's exactly what
> you would see as a good test case...
Sure, the gnarlier the better[*]. I already know my tool works on clean
build models; I need to test it on the wild side now.
Actually, after reading the requirements note on fsc2 I have to add a
caveat. Unlike most people who download open source, I have no intention
of actually installing and using the tools; I just want to build them.
Therefore I'd prefer stuff that doesn't have a whole lot of
prerequisites ("You must have already installed Perl AND SSL AND
libiconv AND ...").
[*] Of course since I'm both developer and QA on this, the QA side of me
says this while the developer cringes.
-- Thanks, M.Biswas
- Next message: Doug McIntyre: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Previous message: Jens.Toerring_at_physik.fu-berlin.de: "Re: large open-source packages"
- In reply to: Jens.Toerring_at_physik.fu-berlin.de: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Next in thread: Doug McIntyre: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Reply: Doug McIntyre: "Re: large open-source packages"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|