Re: [java-gnome-hackers] [Help] Autoconf developer wanted

[Mark H. <mh...@ca...>]

does anyone have thoughts about this? can I send it?

On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:07:45PM +0000, Mark Howard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If nobody disagrees, I would like to senf this to -developer and
> hopefully Jeff will also consider adding it as a job request on
> sourceforge.
> 
> Hello,
>   
> The Java-Gnome project produces a set of bindings of the core Gnome
> developer platform for the Java language. We have recently joined the
> official Gnome Bindings Release and as part of this have made a large
> overhaul of our repository structure and build system. We have a working
> build system but none of us are experts or even experienced in the GNU
> autoconf/make tools so there are a few areas where we could do with
> help.
> 
> Our current build process:
> >From our repository, we release an all-in-one tarball, plus several
> separate tarballs (one for each module). Each tarball has it's own
> configure script and make files. Since these have many sections in
> common, we generate the actual Makefile.in and configure.in files from
> shared files and *.in.in files using a very simple perl script.
> 
> The makefiles themselves then compile java-gnome, which involves
> compiling java source files to java bytecode and native code (with gcj),
> compiling c source files (jni files) and also packaging everything into
> a jar file and shared libraries. This part of the build process works
> well.
> 
> What we want help with:
> (in decreasing order of priority)
> 
> Modifying the configure script so that any java compiler can be used. At
> the moment, we default to javac and allow kaffe with a configure time
> option. GNU autoconf-archive has a macro which is supposed to do this,
> but unfortunately I couldn't get it to work (it wasn't setting the
> JAVA_CFLAGS variable).  Instead, we're using a macro which is very
> inflexible and looks like it is a hack of a hack.
> 
> For the separate module tarballs, e.g. libgnome-java, we need to locate
> libraries which would have been produced by the other tarballs, such as
> libgtk2.5-java.so. At the moment, these are hand coded to the default
> installation locations. It would be good if this could be configurable.
> 
> It would be helpful if we had more parts of the process configurable.
> For example, if we could say configure --nodocs so that documentation
> does not get generated.
> 
> In general, having somebody who knows what they're doing look over our
> build system and suggesting any improvements which could be made would
> be very reassuring
> 
> 
> If you have experience with the standard GNU tools, we really would like
> to hear from you. Any help you may offer would be very much appreciated.
> A little knowledge of java would be helpful but is in no way necessary.
> We will be able to give lots of help if you need it.
> 
> 
> -- 
>   .''`. Mark Howard
>  : :' :
>  `. `'  http://www.tildemh.com 
>    `-   mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca... 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> java-gnome-hackers mailing list
> jav...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/java-gnome-hackers
> 

-- 
  .''`. Mark Howard
 : :' :
 `. `'  http://www.tildemh.com 
   `-   mh...@de... | mh...@ti... | mh...@ca...