Re: [LTP] [Catepault->LTP] Coming soon

[Garrett C. <yan...@gm...>]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Subrata Modak
<su...@li...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 21:42 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>> Hi Garrett,
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 04:12 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> > So, as I said earlier I was going to repost Ballista under another
>> > project name up on SF thanks to the PI's blessings, so here's the
>> > placeholder:
>> >
>> > http://sf.net/projects/catepault/ (haven't posted the source files yet)
>>
>> Good to see that you have come up with the rewrite so fast.
>>
>> >
>> > Catepault so far does not differ from Ballista, apart from the fact
>> > that I rewrote the Makefiles to support cross-compilation, simplify
>> > logic, and to properly clean all binary targets (YAY!).
>> >
>> > I'm going to try pushing some of the platform dependent items from
>> > "configure" (a glorified Perl script) to the actual C++ files, or
>> > their respective headers, to get rid of the Perl dependency in the
>> > system for compilation. This will be a win-win (IMO) as it will allow
>> > more restricted embedded environments to compile the sources for
>> > Catepault without having an unnecessary Perl interpreter to just fill
>> > in the platform dependent API gaps.
>> >
>>
>> How do you plan this to handle in LTP ? Do you want to remove the folder
>> ballista completely and replace with new catepault ?
>
> Garrett,
>
> Would you like to convey your Idea here ?
>
> Regards--
> Subrata
>
>>
>> Regards--
>> Subrata
>>
>> > Will keep you guys posted as things transpire.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > -Garrett
>> >

Well, quite frankly it would be silly to have Ballista and Catepault
both in the LTP repository, as they provide basically the same
purpose, minus Ballista being executable on the target machine whereas
Catepault can only be executed on the build host.

Plus Catepault will do the right thing by cleaning itself properly :D.
-Garrett