Subject: Re: [wx-dev] makefile.* (could be changed, afraid of filters)
From: Randy Kramer (rhkramer@fast.net)
Date: Thu Jul 05 2001 - 08:07:09 CDT
This is intended to look at least a little like spam -- hopefully it's
not ;-)
$$$ Make million$ fast! $$$
Work in the privacy of your own home
(Trade in one demanding boss for thousands ;-)
How?
Become an expert in make, CVS, multiple development tools, multiple
release platforms, and offer release building and project CVS setup
services for "reasonable fees".
Free and open source developers would concentrate on developing their
projects,
you would:
- provide "pro forma" setups of CVS, make files, automake, autoconf,
project directories, release packages ...
- (for "an additional fee") compile and package release code for
multiple platforms
- provide instructions on what to do during development to make
packaging for multiple platforms "Just Work"
- provide instructions for setting up CVS and make files so that any
combination (or a reasonable selection) of development tools "Just
Works"
- troubleshoot (consult) when problems occur
- subscribe to the maillists of projects which "hire" you, and answer
questions as they arise (or run a specialized maillist to which other
developers subscribe)
You would:
- retire with millions in 5 years or less ;-)
- be "set" for the rest of your life (spend the rest of your life in a
private, security enhanced institutional setting on the beautiful
tree-lined banks of a slow flowing river, with 24/7 nursing care, a
steady supply of reality enhancing, hallucinogenic, or relaxational
pharmaceuticals, ... ;-)
Tongue in cheek, but serious about a business opportunity (that might
profit you in cash or "reputation") -- if SourceForge was healthier (and
even if not), it would be worth approaching them with a business
proposition -- they might hire someone to provide these services to
others, either on a salary basis, or on some sort of commission basis
based on some performance measurement -- traffic you generate, customer
(developer) satisfaction (which might be measured by developer
endorsements of faster development and release cycles due to less
developer time spent with make, etc.), ...
Training:
- you would be responsible for your own training -- solve these problems
for a few of the free or open source projects that have the toughest
problems
Aside: I'm too much of a newbie to have properly described the services
I'm suggesting. On the development lists I subscribe to, I see a lot of
discussion about things like make, the problems of using different
compilers, and the problems of creating release packages for different
platforms. There must be an opportunity here.
Don't wait -- in five years I might know enough to do this ;-)
Randy Kramer
PS: This was prompted by recent discussions on the wxWindows development
list, but I'm sending a copy to AbiWord just to see if they can imagine
ever encountering similar problems ;-)
PPS: "Just Work(s)" might be a trademark of AbiWord. ;-) (I think
that's where I first encountered the phrase.)
PPPS: If you want to learn more about this business opportunity, send me
just four easy payments of $29.95 each, plus an outrageous fee for
shipping and handling. I don't have anything else to tell you, but I'm
willing to accept your cash, certified check, or money order. Or, (I'm
willing to) use your credit card.
PPPPS: I wonder how many spam filters will discard this?
<"The following has been edited for content", it may have contained
adult content, including nudity, language, ...>
xxx xxxx wrote:
> At 13:50 04/07/2001 +0200, you wrote:
> >xxxx's proposed makegen tool would be PART OF WXWINDOWS, damn it!
>
> OK, OK, calm down now :-) I'm only pontificating...
>
> > > Downloading and compiling wxWindows -
> > > especially from CVS - is a daunting task to most people. We have to
> >
> >Yes. Typing one more command would be a trivial task compared to
> >that. Plus -- please keep this in mind! -- releases ***would contain
> >generated makefiles***, to keep people's life easier. It's only about
> >CVS and there is surely no wx-developer who don't know how to type
> >makegen<enter> on command-line... If this is not "absolutely
> >trivial", well, I wonder what is.
>
> It could work...
>
> >Can other people please tell us their opinion? So far only Julian was
> >against makegen, I would really like to know how the rest of
> >wx-developers see it. I for sure don't understand why should I edit
> >tens of makefiles when adding one microscopic file to a sample,
> >when computers are much more suitable for such boring and repetitive
> >task.
>
> I'm not really that much against it if it works. I find it boring editing
> makefiles too. I'm just airing possible concerns, but if they evaporate,
> all well and good. The idea of one gmakefile is interesting too, I wonder
> how they handle all the compiler options... I think xxxx xxxx tried this
> once upon a time but if I remember right it wasn't totally satisfactory. Ah
> no, come to think of it he was trying to use the same makefile using
> different makes. Anyway, maybe a combined makefile generator + gmake would
> be a possibility, rather than generating makefiles for different compilers?
> Maybe just generate different include files for the main makefile. Plus, if
> the included makefiles have different names, you could use the same
> Makefile with a command-line switch to compile for a different compiler.
> The Makefile would have a big switch in it to include the appropriate
> include according to a switch you pass.
>
> Regards,
> xxxx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Jul 05 2001 - 08:14:31 CDT