[Kolab-devel] Three part of the Kolab project: Concept, Server Imple, KDE Client

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Wednesday 12 May 2004 20:46, Stuart Bingë wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 May 2004 20:33, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > The webpages document the whole project, thus they document
> > all three parts, which could bring the on the top level in my view.
>
> That would actually make more sense.
>
> > What would be the advantages in converting them to devtool.conf, btw?
>
> Thomas answered this before - quoting him:

I considered this answer a a general approach to code not to documentation.
The "tab" problem is largely irrelevant there
and we also do not have run-time dependencies.
Make is overkill for documentation, too, but it documents
the needed instructions fine so far.

If you want my personal take on it, the next huge project I start
with dependencies for incremental build will be based on
SCons instead of make. :)

Bernhard

> ----------
> I have never closely examined the existing Makefile approach. In
> general, Makefiles are useful when you accept the annoying tab problem,
> the confusion when release engineering stuff mixes up with distribution
> stuff (both using Makefiles for different things) and the error-prone
> task of proper dependency maintenance. No real showstoppers for
> developers. In fact, I often use Makefiles for various tasks.
>
> When I contributed that stuff the goal was to improve release
> engineering and version numbering. I did not (re)invent the wheel so
> I took what I'm using for years. Unlike daily coding, when it comes
> to release engineering everthing has to be built from scratch so the
> primary advantage of Makefiles being able to do incremental work is lost
> anyway.
>
> It is not so important which tool is used but Kolab is in desperate need
> for a proper release engineering and version numbering. In the end, a
> release should be done as easy as "./devtool release" or "make release"
> to get a versioned tarball out of the door. The script snippets that
> drive the release are very similar in both cases.
> ----------
>
> Although, I guess with regards to the web pages the concepts of a 'release'
> and maintaining version numbers are irrelevant.
>
> So what else would we gain? Well, for one we would eliminate the tab
> problem :-) Another advantage would be that it is the same method used for
> the releng modules, so there would be that familiarity (everything conforms
> to a standard build/release management tool).
>
> It's really not much of an issue though, just a thought.
>
> - Stuart
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kolab-devel mailing list
> Kolab-devel at kolab.org
> https://kolab.org/mailman/listinfo/kolab-devel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2145 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20040513/2c6d63d7/attachment.p7s>