Right, here's a list of dependencies taken from AmigaOpenOffice.org. I've stripped out the ones that are apparently already available for OS4.
Which ones are being worked on, which ones need more research, and are there any that we already have?
- Network Audio System (audio)
- Dmake - Build Environment Tool
- NP_SDK
- Sane
- STLPort - C++ Standard Template Library (Std2)
- Twain
- Neon
- glibc 2.1.x or higher
- Perl 5
- csh
- gpc general polygon clipper library
- Ant Build Environment
Hi,
Olly Hodgson wrote:
- Dmake - Build Environment Tool
Good you mention it. I've built a version that uses newlib V3, so now with Update 3 (which contains newlib V3) out, I can release that...
- STLPort - C++ Standard Template Library (Std2)
Steven Solie already ported that.
- glibc 2.1.x or higher
Hmm, are you sure about this one ? Basically, this is a C library, meaning it's equivalent to newlib or clib2... Are there any special functions necessary ?
- Perl 5
A port is available, AFAIK.
- gpc general polygon clipper library
Doesn't sound like an awful lot of work...
- Ant Build Environment
Needs Java, IIRC...
Regards,
Hi,
Thomas Frieden wrote:
- gpc general polygon clipper library
Doesn't sound like an awful lot of work...
Are we talking about this one ?
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/alan/software/
If yes, consider it ported :) It's just one .c and one .h file and compiles out of the box.
Regards,
Hi,
Olly Hodgson wrote:
- csh
One more thing regarding the shells: It would be interesting to find out if they are needed at all. Those types of shells are quite Un-Amiga-Like (same applies to automake and autoconf). Maybe we could do without them ?
Just a though...
Regards,
On 6/16/05, Thomas Frieden ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
One more thing regarding the shells: It would be interesting to find out if they are needed at all. Those types of shells are quite Un-Amiga-Like (same applies to automake and autoconf). Maybe we could do without them ?
Indeed. The thing is though, if we want to keep compatibility with the OOo codebase in future, do we really want a radically different build environment?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Olly Hodgson" oliver.hodgson@gmail.com
Indeed. The thing is though, if we want to keep compatibility with the OOo codebase in future, do we really want a radically different build environment?
In my opinion, the codebase should be prioritized over the build environment. What distinguises the Amiga OS (whichever version) isn't it's ability to act like windows ;-). Sure we're porting a windows/linux application however I would suggest a more amiga like approact to autoconf and the other...Simply because it's amiga :-).
But that's just me ;-).
Stephane Richard
Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4
Hi,
stephane richard wrote:
Indeed. The thing is though, if we want to keep compatibility with the OOo codebase in future, do we really want a radically different build environment?
In my opinion, the codebase should be prioritized over the build environment. What distinguises the Amiga OS (whichever version) isn't it's ability to act like windows ;-). Sure we're porting a windows/linux application however I would suggest a more amiga like approact to autoconf and the other...Simply because it's amiga :-).
The concern about keeping up with the official version is a good one, though..
Generally, I would also like to stay away from the unixifying of the build process...
Well, in the end, we need to see how much really depends on the shell scripts...
Regards,
On 6/17/05, Thomas Frieden ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
The concern about keeping up with the official version is a good one, though..
Especially if we plan to become "just another official port" at some point in the future?
Generally, I would also like to stay away from the unixifying of the build process...
Well, in the end, we need to see how much really depends on the shell scripts...
Indeedley doodley.
Hi,
Olly Hodgson wrote:
The concern about keeping up with the official version is a good one, though..
Especially if we plan to become "just another official port" at some point in the future?
Argh... even better point :S
Regards,
Op 17-jun-05, om 01:10 heeft stephane richard het volgende geschreven:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Olly Hodgson" oliver.hodgson@gmail.com
Indeed. The thing is though, if we want to keep compatibility with the OOo codebase in future, do we really want a radically different build environment?
In my opinion, the codebase should be prioritized over the build environment. What distinguises the Amiga OS (whichever version) isn't it's ability to act like windows ;-). Sure we're porting a windows/linux application however I would suggest a more amiga like approact to autoconf and the other...Simply because it's amiga :-).
But that's just me ;-)
Does anyone know how the build proccess is handled on win32? Do they use cygwin or other tools then automake/conf/csh?
---- Amon_Re Ochal Christophe Webmaster for: http://www.kefren.be http://www.metalfest.be http://amigadev.amigaworld.net
Op 17-jun-05, om 00:58 heeft Olly Hodgson het volgende geschreven:
On 6/16/05, Thomas Frieden ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
One more thing regarding the shells: It would be interesting to find out if they are needed at all. Those types of shells are quite Un- Amiga-Like (same applies to automake and autoconf). Maybe we could do without them ?
Indeed. The thing is though, if we want to keep compatibility with the OOo codebase in future, do we really want a radically different build environment?
That's indeed the problem, we could remove the dependencies on some/ all of these tools, but that might hinder us from at one point merging with OOo
---- Amon_Re Ochal Christophe Webmaster for: http://www.kefren.be http://www.metalfest.be http://amigadev.amigaworld.net
-
Ochal Christophe -
Olly Hodgson -
stephane richard -
Thomas Frieden