[Chandler-dev] Compiler versions
alecf at osafoundation.org
Thu Apr 20 10:40:52 PDT 2006
Heikki Toivonen wrote:
> Andi Vajda wrote:
>> My preference is neither. We should document which compilers are known
>> to work so that developers who want reliability know what to work with.
> I don't see how this could work. Any code change could cause the build
> to break under some previously "known to work" compiler.
I also vote for neither.. this is a documentation and community issue,
not a makefile issue. We should simply *document* the compilers we do
support in the build instructions themselves, and then let people add
wiki links for building on other compilers. If people are having trouble
building there should be lots of documentation about potential problems
and we should be welcoming their participation on the mailing list if
they have questions. When their questions are answered, the
documentation should be updated to reflect their new and different
variety of problems they've encountered.
It sounds like your fear is that people will blindly build with the
wrong compiler successfully and then be confused down the road when the
build suddenly breaks for them? Sure, this situation sucks but I think
if we have sufficient docs and an active mailing list & IRC then we can
help them work through their issue.
I guess I don't see a reason to:
a) spew a warning that users will be trained to ignore after doing 2 or
b) prevent the user from building because they want to build on their
"Novell SlackBuntuToo" distribution
This is the kind of situation that autoconf/configure was designed to
deal with, I really wish we just used that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chandler-dev