[M3devel] more Debian packages?

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
I got your point, but even after that the need for product-quality inter-opeartion with C code, specially, because everything else in the market is C, is desperately needed, we don't have some framework to actually using code from C-RT as is. I know DEC somehow lacked more effort towards producing for us that, although C interoperability was very good, they studied the problem for C and Modula-3, which is nice, and also I think they worked in their GEM compiler for Fortran, Cobol, C, .. so they should used basic concepts like 'program cell' for those compilers.
That said I know of an incremental code generator and linker for typeful programming languages for database machines, so I know producing some compiler target wouldn't be hard so much work like currently we had to even when there are many languages that we would match, say SQL, etc. 

Thanks in advance

--- El dom, 20/5/12, Jay <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: Re: [M3devel] more Debian packages?
Para: "Daniel Alejandro Benavides D." <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
CC: "<hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>" <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>, "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>, "Jay K" <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Fecha: domingo, 20 de mayo, 2012 16:43

No no no.We will not have an explosion of targets like this. We hopefully will have a drastic reduction.Processor: C or C++Threads: pthreads or Win32 or maybe ucontext or setjmpGUI: X Windows or Win32 or none or maybe otherSuspension: cooperative and probably no other

If the right level of #ifdef and/or autoconf and/or libtool use can makes its way into the "object code", maybe just target completely. (imagine one C source distribution for ALL targets and what that requires).We have rather replaced autoconf & libtool with our carefully researched & written quake code, for better & worse & I am torn as to if this is a good thing. Autoconf & libtool are slow & obscure but ubiquitous, get the job done, are actively maintained by others.

 - Jay (briefly/pocket-sized-computer-aka-phone)
On May 19, 2012, at 11:32 AM, "Daniel Alejandro Benavides D." <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es> wrote:

Hi all:

 I would want LINUX_I80_8Y or if you prefer LINUX_I_8Y,

for instance to allow and or LINUX_I8086, etc LINUX_I387 

For VAXen computers:

VMS_VAX__

for VAX Mini/Mainframe VMS_VAX9K or VMS_VAX11

Alpha's: OSF_ALPHA

For Unixes:

FBSD-GENERIC_I_86___--

To allow: FBSD-2_I386.MAX, OBSD-6_I_86.AMD64

Also could be managed by Manufacturer Model code-name, like

DEC_AQUARIUS or DEC_10000.



Also if we are gonna take macro assembly for cross-platform distributions then, we would need  something akin:

NT_XASM-I_86___

So to cross-assembly from C-RT to POSIX interoperability NT-I_86GNU (if such is supported in any appropriate version, Jay)

This would allow to compile CVSup at least is what one would like to
Thanks in advance

 --- El vie, 18/5/12, Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu> escribió:

De: Jay K <jay.krell at cornell.edu>
Asunto: Re: [M3devel] more Debian packages?
Para: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com, "m3devel" <m3devel at elegosoft.com>
Fecha: viernes, 18 de mayo, 2012 16:50




Yes and yes.
LINUXLIBC6 and AMD64_LINUX can coexist -- different targets can coexist.
But "squeeze" vs. "wheezy" will both just be LINUXLIBC6.
 
 
Please try to use I386_LINUX.
I really want to stop this LINUXLIBC6 stuff...
 
 
 You can share the source.
 But we also have outputs in the source tree (unfortunately!).
    You see -- Modula-3 build system ahead of its time at the time in putting each package's output separate from the source, but that is now not uncommon, and Modula-3 then falls down because at least by default, a multi-package source tree contains its outputs... Modula-3 does things better than most folks at the time, and now worse than everyone knows is ideal and that some folks do...
 
 
 Do this to switch:
 
 ./do-cm3-all.py realclean 
 
 - Jay
 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:56:49 -0400
> From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: [M3devel] more Debian packages?
> 
> Having succeeded at producing a binary .deb packages for Debian squeeze 
> (though I still have to try it out), I'm now looking at my other 
> machines.  I have a 32-bit Intel machine with wheeze (testing), and one 
> that can run squeeze (stable).  All of them have access to the same 
> NFS-mounted source tree.  Is it practical to use the same tree for two 
> different platforms (such as AMD64_LINUX and LINUXLIB6?) and will they 
> be kept separate?  Or do I need to clean it out or copy it?
> 
> (by the way, I expect making packages for different Debian releases on 
> the same hardware architecture will require a new source tree, or a 
> cleaned-out one.  In my case they'll
 both be LINUXLIBC6)
> 
> -- hendrik
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20120521/976f78b7/attachment-0002.html>