@afxgroup
Quote:
Not only. You can test also program with and without unix paths at runtime
You mean by putting .unix file in ? Yeah, that can be handy for fast check indeed.
Quote:
(I still prefer always the OS4 paths way)
Everyone should prefer it of course :)
I tried to build what you have , and firstly found that there no usual "Makefile", but instead "GNUMakefile.os4". I read this done because "adtools" search for this one exactly, so it keeps like this for avoid issues with adtools, but maybe later if adtools will switch to your clib2, we can change it on pure Makefile for clean reassons ?
Next, tried to build it like "make -f GNUMakefile.os4", and have those kind of errors:
user@DESKTOP-3NFAB0O /amiga2/clib2-master
$ make -f GNUmakefile.os4
Assembling \033[0;33m[build/lib]\033[0m \r\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \033[0;31mcrt0.o\033[0m
cp -r ./build/lib/crt0.o /usr/ppc-amigaos/SDK/clib2/lib/
cp: cannot create regular file '/usr/ppc-amigaos/SDK/clib2/lib/': No such file or directory
make: *** [GNUmakefile.os4:154: build/lib/crt0.o] Error 1
That mean Makefile need some love ?:)
IMHO, if anyone run makefile without any options, it should doing just that : only compile code. No install, not "cp -r build", etc. Pure complation of files and libs. Then if anyone wish can use "make install" or whatever. As it now it looks strange, why it tried to copy anything without being asked for , it should compile code imho :)
Probabaly makefile need to be structured like this : firstly everything compiles in its own build directory, and only then, if one do "make install" copy the things. As of now it looks like it tries to compile something , and then immediately copy.
Makefile also have some hardcore patches like INSTALL_PREFIX = /usr/ppc-amigaos/SDK/clib2 and SDK_INCLUDE := /usr/ppc-amigaos/SDK/include, while most of time by default it's /usr/local/amiga/ppc-amigaos. But anyway there should't be any hardcore stuff, but probabaly after compilation done, should be something like "make install /usr/albaklalasd/ppc-amigaos/" etc.
Also i checke file "changes", and while it not that important as code in library, it still looks a bit broken too : you have there 2 times c.lib 2.001 , but with different dates, and in the middle you have c.lib 2.000 (xxx). Looks like unstructured chaos, imho :) Even syntax of notes a bit broken : (2021-02-08) vs (2021-03 25) (mising -). Sure all that not imporant enough, but if we want to make a good replacement, everytihng should be good, clean, and all pieces looks clean and without typos (or ppls will think that code also have typos).
Also "changes" file didn't have anything saying about libnix thing we discuss previously.
So to summorize : cosmetic in "changes" file, and issue with Makefile which is major one.
Edited by kas1e on 2022/3/22 10:34:36