Windows builds and the build system rationale

On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 09:06, Stephen Leake wrote:

> These are all very reasonable requirements.
> 
> However, the use of the term "script" is a problem. If it is assumed
> that <prefix>/bin/maxima is a "script", that means we have to have a
> standard scripting language. On Unix systems, the standard is /bin/sh.
> On Windows, it is "the DOS box". The two are _not_ compatible.

I am not a moron. I know that Bourne shell is not port of DOS. The
"scripts" I was talking about are Bourne shell and wish. The reason I
maintained xmaxima as a pure wish script was precisely so that it could
be used on Windows systems.

> It would be much simpler (from a cross-platform point of view) if
> <prefix>/bin/maxima were an executable, that required no command line
> arguments. Non-standard ways to run maxima could be supported via
> command line options and/or environment variables.

The problem is that most Lisp implementations do not generate
stand-alone executables. That is the reason that the maxima executable
is a shell script.

> > The current build system meets those requirements under unix-like
> > systems. I don't know enough about windows to have any idea what to
> > do there. I did my best to not avoid things I knew would cause new
> > problems under Windows, but I did so with little guidance. If the
> > people working on the windows packaging would like to offer some
> > guidance, now would be the time.
> 
> The main problem is the use of a shell script. I believe it is
> possible to accomplish all of the requirements above without shell
> scripts (on both Windows and Unix).

No, it is not.

--Jim