Re: packaging beepcore-c

I've been looking into beepcore-c as well, and I submitted a patch to do some
build tweaks to Huston last week.  It's available here:
<http://users.sdsc.edu/~small/comment_inc.patch.gz>
It changes the #include directives, and adds some more complex -I statements to
the build system.  It also changes some comments from C++ style // to C style
/* */ comments.  This leaves the directory structure pretty much as it is,
which may be good or bad.

I wasn't sure what to do about the make install issue, either.  We've started
building a single libbeepcore from all the source files, rather than trying to
use (or link together) the library files that make install creates.

-matt

> I have not been active recently on beepcore-c, but this is the right place
> for this conversation.
> 
> The question of Debian packaging I think is that it would be welcome.  The guy
> who did the last major revision of the build structure is Bruce Michener, and
> I am not sure what his status is currenlt for spending time ome BEEP, but
> he'd be the best resource for questions of the current structure of how the 
> build happen.
> 
> As to include files.  There was a while ago, and it may still be an open
> item, a question of some refactoring to do on the include files, to make 
> things cleaner, as there were some things that we did not really like in the 
> end.  As for moving to a -I compiler option rather than relative pathnames in 
> #include, that's a minor change that would be welcome I think.
> 
> Not sure about the make install issues.
> 
> Huston and Marshall are probably the most active at this point I suspect.
> 
> -bill


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf