you are definitely right. Obviously both me and Bernhard didn't think
The problem is that makefiles are now processed by configure, so that
some paths will be probably wrong (at least on WIN32 platform). But
makefiles can be processed again before packaging...
So Bernhard, please include makefiles into WIN32 installer if possible.
We will see how to patch them after that.
Maarten Brock wrote:
>Some Makefiles ARE usefull for sdcc users, namely the ones to compile the
>libraries. If a user needs to recompile libraries with a certain switch a
>good makefile can make a lot of difference for ease of use. Writing a good
>makefile is not a trivial task, but updating a switch in it is. I would
>argue even W32 users should have a makefile that can run with unxutils'
>>I agree with your proposal:
>>- Makefile* are useless for the sdcc user
>>- lib/src/z80/README is useless too.
>>- lib/src/pic/GPL: the GPL license is already the top in the file
>>COPYING, but there is also the LGPL file, which is currently not
>>available anywhere else, but applys (more or less, see below) to whole
>>sdcc library, so it should be also moved to the top or under the device
>>directory. But you can leave it there and I'll fix the installation.
>>I saw an other problem I was not aware of: many library sources and
>>header files are published under the GPL license, which is probably not
>>what we want. I propose to make a list of such files and try to contact
>>the authors to change the license. The list should be a part of the
>>installation (maybe in the sdccman), so that the users are aware what
>>they can use for non GPL projects.
>>If the authors of non LGPL library/include files are reading this mail,
>>they can change the license immediately if they agree.
>>>Hi Borut, hi folks,
>>>I'm currently struggling to make the nightly build work again. The last
>>>problem is the windows installer.
>>>It stumbles over files in the library sources, e.g.:
>>> and so on.
>>>They were install by the old build system. I guess they were installed
>>>because of poorly written install commands. In my opinion it doesn't make
>>>sense to install these files.
>>>- None of the 'Makefile's doesn't work, they want to run
>>>Moreover they all were created by 'configure', it hardly makes sense to
>>>them on another host.
>>>- Makefile.dep could be quickly recreated (by a reasonable Makefile)
>>>- most README are out of date.
>>>- GPL should be at the top level
>>>I propose not to pack these files into the archives and the windows
>>>If you (and Borut) agree I would like to remove these files from
>>>After clarifcation the build of the windows installer will work again!