POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.programming : What's in a name? : Re: What's in a name? Server Time
16 Apr 2024 19:03:10 EDT (-0400)
  Re: What's in a name?  
From: dick balaska
Date: 20 Jan 2018 22:00:22
Message: <5a640246$1@news.povray.org>
On 01/20/2018 07:01 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 20.01.2018 um 04:06 schrieb dick balaska:
>> I was always a little sad that povray uses *.ini and *.inc . Something
>> with a little more magic would have been nice instead of ubergenerics
>> that many compete for. ("Do you want to open MASM?", um no.)
> Remember that back in the days when POV-Ray was originally created, you
> didn't open files from the operating system level; rather, you started
> the program that you knew would be able to open the file, and told that
> program to open the file.

Sure. And on my Amiga, .ini and .inc meant little.

> - a build process shouldn't expect any of its build steps to core dump;
> if a build tool is that unstable, it shouldn't be used at all.

It's not the build that cores, it's test/debug runs.  Clean also deletes 
*~ and *.bak and other hard coded detritus.

> - qmake should at least test whether `core` even is a regular file
> (which would be the case if it was a coredump) before attempting to
> delete it.

Agreed. "QMAKE_CLEAN -= core" at least should work.

> Renaming the directory is a step I'd rather avoid; first, because I do
> think `core` is a fitting name, and second, because it would create a
> "fault line" in the source code version history.

Yeah, I didn't like it for historical reasons. And because I'm trying to 
be as unobtrusive as possible to the current source.

I renamed source/core to source/povcore just to move on. (Which meant 
editing every single source file that #include "core/blah.h")
I'm not married to the idea, in fact I hate it. But I do have 
libpovray.a and my qtpov built as one executable on Linux. (doesn't do 
shit yet, but it builds)

> Can you avoid running qmake from the `./source/` directory? That would
> be the easiest way out. Remember that you may have two options there:

> - Run qmake from the base directory (`./`).

I already do.  There are currently 4 .pro files.
./povray.pro - point to the other 3 .pro files and build them in this order:
./source/source.pro - build libpovray.a
./vfe/qt/qt.pro - build the vfe interface between libpovray.a and qt gui.
./qt/gui/gui.pro - build the qtpovray gui executable

I broke them up like that because they have different build needs.
Like libpovray is unaware of any Qt gui foo.

> - Run qmake for each sub-directory of `./source/` separately (i.e.
> `./source/backend/`, `./source/base/`, `./source/core/`, etc.

Ooh, ooh, I know.  Idiot. What I'll do is create 
./qt/libpovray/libpovray.pro and build all of ./source from there. (I 
can access ../source).  That'll be messy too, I'll get ../../ blindness 
for sure. But it'll work, and it's better than renaming a primary directory.

> I concede that the latter isn't ideal in case more modules are added in
> the future, but maybe that's a bullet to bite. As for the only source
> file residing in `./source/` itself, `povmain.cpp`, the code in there is
> presumably irrelevant for your project.

Rendered 920576 of 921600 pixels (99%)

Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.