Kdevelop, M4, Cygwin, and me.
Ralf Habacker
kde-cygwin@mail.kde.org
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:16:23 +0100
> >add the line
> >
> >MIN_CONFIG(2.2)
> >
> >to admin/configure.in.min
> Ok, done
> >and run
> >
> >$make Makefile.cvs again
> Do you mean "make --file=Markefile.cvs" ?
or
$ make -f Makefile.cvs
> I tried both and neither made a difference
> I have the stable source, not the cvs, if that makes a difference.
yes, than you have to patch configure. :-(
<many error messages>
> I am green to programming in Linux/Cygwin/*nix (which might explain why I am
> using Kdevelop instead of vi or e-macs ;-) so these things seem a
> little arcane to me, but I am trying my best to at least bark up the
suspicious trees.
Please note, that porting kdevelop on cygwin isn't a task for a beginner. There
are several issues you should get familar before you can port a such a big
application.
Additional the recent kdevelop port is marked as alpha state and it will still
be in the next time because with the recent xfree/cygwin performance it will not
be usefull.
If you are really interessted in porting kdevelop you should do the following:
1. get familiar with cygwin and cygwin/xfree
2. get familiar with the compiling/linking process under cygwin using
gcc/ld/automake/autoconf/libtool/make.
3. get familiar compiling and using the qt library (cygwin binary dist or cvs
source from kde-cygwin; NOT the original releases from trolltech)
4. check out the recent kdevelop sources from kde-cygwin and update to the
recent kdevelop sources
5. Try to compile/port the missing thinks.
I think this whole stuff needs about 3-8 weeks depending on your personal
know-how.
> One thing I have noticed with my use of cygwin in the past is that
> Windows tends to replace unix line endings with dos/windows line endings, and
this
> has played havoc on me before. I must always use tar.exe when archiving under
> cygwin. Is it possible that windows foobar'd the includes prior to packing?
I
> took a look with notepad, and things looked as they would with unix line
endings, but I
> thought it was worth mentioning.
Please use an editor which supports unix line eol. This could be for example
vi/emacs or ultraedit or other editor.
Ralf