old addition: winetests
Dimitrie O. Paun
dpaun at rogers.com
Tue Nov 11 06:00:10 CST 2003
On November 11, 2003 05:53 am, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Sounds good enough. The question was about the Makefile,
> though. I don't know the build system, unfortunately, so I
> don't even know if it has the necessary basis for this.
It has no basis for it, I guess we'll just need to create
different targets in the Makefile.in. Maybe by default we
should build the Winelib app, and be build the PE one only
when invoked explicitly:
> >> 3. How to derive/give the cleaning rules?
> > What cleaning rules?
> In the Makefile, again. That's why I added the
> PROGRAMS = winetests.c winetests.rc ...
> hack to the Makefile.
What about just addding a new clean:: target.
> Thanks, got it. Not sure... Presently, the output simply
> stays in the log file (it's not deleted). It got rid of the
> shell dependencies for now.
Yes, but I'm not that sure it's a good trade. I think the
shell idea was a good first-order approximation. I'd rather
get winetests in the tree with the shell dependency, get
your scripts integrated into WineHQ, get people to test, etc.
(that is, there is a lot more work to be done to have the
full circle completed), and worry about getting rid of it
only after that. The advantage is that by the time people
will be using the program, and we'll have a much better idea
what they want, so we don't waste time coding on theoretical
ideas only. Time to market is of the essence (and it's not
a bad idea to begin with).
More information about the wine-devel