From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2003-02-01T06:18:17+09:00
Subject: Re: [RFC] mkmf.rb - add files to clean and distclean targets


On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> In message "Re: [RFC] mkmf.rb - add files to clean and distclean targets"
>     on 03/01/20, Mathieu Bouchard <matju@sympatico.ca> writes:
> |1. no C++ support (I stopped using C). I have to change gcc for g++; The
> |former works fine only on certain platforms with certain versions of the
> |compiler. For the rest, "g++" has to be used.
> mkmf.rb does support C++, using $(CXX) for compiler, cpp, cxx, or C
> for extension.  But I personally do not (and will not) use C++, so
> that I'd like to hear about the better mkmf.rb C++ support.

I'm sorry. My problem surely occurs because I had .c files which were in
my CVS and still are except that they are now C++ code... so mkmf
makefiles can't recognize them by suffix.

> |2. no support for other languages/situations (I generate assembly
> |language code from a ruby script). If mkmf is not going to support that
> |(which is fine with me), then it could at least provide a means to plug
> |my own makefile additions in. This includes hooks into
> |rules all/clean/distclean/etc.
> Indeed.  Do you have any suggestion?

a flag that will cause mkmf to add "include Makefile2" to its Makefile,
and transform "all:" into "all: all2", etc.

> |4. I don't know what's supposed to be the difference between site-install
> |and install, but the directory that "install" installs into is not the one
> |my extension was installing into before mkmf came here.
> The one install the extension should decide whether it is going to be
> installed by site-install or install.  site-install was originally
> introduced for the extensions and libraries not controlled under
> platform's packaging system.

I see. Then I will try to fix my package without causing too much
trouble...

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju