• Frank Benoit (10/10) Aug 07 2008 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.
• Bill Baxter (5/15) Aug 07 2008 What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"?
• Frank Benoit (6/26) Aug 07 2008 it is still one more step that can be forgotten and makes it for me more...
• yidabu (11/39) Aug 07 2008 I always use DWT as lib for the build time.
• Bill Baxter (17/48) Aug 07 2008 I like to use the dsss files.

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in 
speed and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs 
and remove it from the installation guide.
The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have 
dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative 
import path ( -I )
What do you think?

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
<keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?


What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"?
That's what I already do with dwt-addons.

--bb

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

Bill Baxter schrieb:
 On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
 <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?

 
 
 What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"?
 That's what I already do with dwt-addons.
 
 --bb

it is still one more step that can be forgotten and makes it for me more 
difficult to give efficient support. There are still problems for ppl 
building the simples DWT prog.

I was more thinking about if build time and executable size makes the 
use of direct sources unacceptable for users.

yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:09:34 +0200
Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter schrieb:
 On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
 <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?

 
 
 What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"?
 That's what I already do with dwt-addons.
 
 --bb

 
 it is still one more step that can be forgotten and makes it for me more 
 difficult to give efficient support. There are still problems for ppl 
 building the simples DWT prog.
 
 I was more thinking about if build time and executable size makes the 
 use of direct sources unacceptable for users.

I always use DWT as lib for the build time.


-- 
yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com>
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwin

D ÓïÑÔ-ÖÐÎÄ(D Chinese):
http://www.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://bbs.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://dwin.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://scite4d.d-programming-language-china.org/

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

2008/8/8 yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com>:
 On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:09:34 +0200
 Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter schrieb:
 On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Frank Benoit
 <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:
 There are allways questions about the lib and linker problems.

 I use for my own development only source include. That is for me OK in speed
 and its the most reliable and easiest way to handle it.

 Now i think about removing the default dsss build target to make libs and
 remove it from the installation guide.
 The dsss.conf files in dwt-linux/dwt-win/dwt-addons would no more have
 dsss.conf file. Or perhaps just one to test compilation.
 And the dsss.conf in dwt-sample just include the sources per relative import
 path ( -I )
 What do you think?


 What's wrong with switching the dsss files to "type=sourcelibrary"?
 That's what I already do with dwt-addons.

 --bb

 it is still one more step that can be forgotten and makes it for me more
 difficult to give efficient support. There are still problems for ppl
 building the simples DWT prog.

 I was more thinking about if build time and executable size makes the
 use of direct sources unacceptable for users.

 I always use DWT as lib for the build time.

I like to use the dsss files.
Using DSSS means that my app's DSSS build file just works without
having to say where to find dwt.
More importantly, it means my app's dsss.conf *also* works for my
colleagues working on the same code, without each of us having to
tweak include paths, and without having to resort to definining lots
of environment variables that describe where things are located in our
environments.

So if you remove the dsss files, I will find it an inconvenience.  I
don't really care what you decide about making it type=library vs
type=sourcelibrary.  I'll change it to whatever I feel like myself.  I
use DWT as a type=library right now, and DWT-addons as
type=sourcelibrary.

I was under the impression that linking with the DWT lib saved me some
compile time on the app, but I can't recall for sure now.

--bb