[GEM-dev] Gem for Pd-extended

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:25 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> hans at eds.org wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2006, at 3:38 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> hans at eds.org wrote:
>>>> I would like to included Gem in the Pd-extended auto-builds.   
>>>> Anyone up for trying it out?  The compile farm is already  
>>>> automatically syncing to the pd-gem CVS every night.  Another  
>>>> option is to import a snapshot into the pure-data CVS and build  
>>>> it from there.
>>>
>>> i prefer the former (pulling pd-gem instead of mirroring it into  
>>> pure-data).
>>>
>>> anyhow, i am "up for trying it out", which steps are required on  
>>> my side?
>> I think the best way to go about it is to add "gem" and  
>> "gem_install" targets to packages/Makefile or packages/linux_make/ 
>> Makefile.  Ideally it would go in the first one since that's used  
>> on all platforms.  The second option is for things that are  
>> platform-specific.  Then that "gem" and "gem_install" targets just  
>> need to be added to the  "all" and "install" targets.
>
> should the install targets also pull (or at least synchronize) pd- 
> gem from the cvs?

cvs operations are handled separately.  The install targets should  
only install files.  In the auto-build system, the main server rsyncs  
from sourceforge, then checked out from the local CVS copy.  The  
other servers then rsync that cvs checkout.  In other situations, the  
human will manage the CVS stuff.

> where should it go?

There are Makefile variables for all these locations.  They are in  
packages/Makefile.buildlayout, that's were all of the rest of the  
Makefiles get them.  Look in the section "DIRECTORY STRUCTURE".  I  
think the names should be self-explanatory, but please ask if they  
are not and I'll document them.  There is also documentation here:

https://puredata.org/docs/developer/build

.hc

>
>> Does ./configure work on all platforms?  That would make life much
>
> that's what i am saying.
> alas!, nobody ever found time to make it really work on os-x,  
> though it should be no real problem. it compiles fine, but i think  
> the linking stage is f*ed-up...
>
>> easier.  Also, since the WinXP auto-build machine is MinGW-based,  
>> it would be quite handy to have ./configure working on MinGW also.
>
> that would be really cool, but somebody would have to do it...
>
>> I am working on getting the auto-builds to report failures via  
>> email, so people know when they broke something.  I am thinking  
>> that these emails would then go to pd-dev.
>
> they should be reported via email; whether the pd-dev is the right  
> place, should be discussed there...
>
>
> mffgasdr
> IOhannes