Re: [Nmedit-devel] GNU Autotools, bison and flex++

[Marcus A. <054...@te...>]

Benoit Beausejour wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been doing some work in our current codebase, looking around in
> Marcus's stuff
> to try to get a big picture of where we are. Mainly, I've done the
> following:
> 
> - Ported our current yacc/flex code to bison/flex++ to generate C++
> Scanners/Generators

Have you given PDL and nmPatch their own namespace? I recently
discovered that some global definitions clash when both are used in
nmProtocol.

What did you have to change in the code?

> - Fixed miscelaneous compile thingies, most likely pertaining to my use
> of gcc 3.2.2.

Good. I have been thinking about doing this, as I would also like to use
3.2, but other things has always come before.

> - Moved our current codebase under a GNU Autotools setup.
> (automake/autoconf/libtool)

Great! This I also planned to do, but I was hoping someone would do it
before I learned the tools. ;)

I have recently included nmPatch into nmProtocol, for the encoding and
decoding of PatchMessage. Should I commit first, or will you commit
first?

> Now I need to initiate a discussion on our directory structure before I
> can commit those changes.
> First, right now our dir structure is comprise of one CVS module for the
> 'editor', one for 'libs' and one for
> 'patchloader'. Usually, we choose all have everything under one module,
> except if we plan on having everyone
> of these things as seperate distro files. Is this our target ?

I would prefer if we released each library separately. It is not a must
though. But I can imagine that libPDL is useable outside the project,
and so will MSVF be as well, if we implement it.

I can also imagine separate build scripts for patchloader and nmedit.
They should be distributed separately.

I don't care very much about the number of cvs modules.

> Right now, in my dev version, I have built a single "nmedit" dir
> containing a checkout of all those 3 modules.

This is the way ALSA has it organized, with only one cvs module, even if
they release four tarballs from that. Fine with me. But maybe we should
skip the 'libs' part as well, and let all applications and libraries
(subprojects actually) go directly in the root directory.

> I built the autotools setup there so that it controls the makefiles,
> library building and config of all modules.

Ok, but it would be nice if each library could be built and installed
separately as well.

Marcus