summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/08/9f5564f7d848c3d3ba51f02da9e0ae5a0514d4
blob: 60aacd29b49aa59327fdfc0e20e8447376134a9b (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <sipa@ulyssis.org>) id 1Qr6gG-000820-DK
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:10:36 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from cavspool01.kulnet.kuleuven.be ([134.58.240.41])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1Qr6gD-0001iI-W1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:10:36 +0000
Received: from cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (rhcavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be
	[134.58.240.129])
	by cavspool01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0463EAB85
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:43:57 +0200 (CEST)
X-KULeuven-Envelope-From: sipa@ulyssis.org
X-Spam-Status: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-48.788, required 5, 
	autolearn=disabled, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 0.00,
	FREEMAIL_FROM 0.00, KUL_SMTPS -50.00, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED 1.20,
	T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL 0.01)
X-KULeuven-Scanned: Found to be clean
X-KULeuven-ID: E715F1382E3.A7DAB
X-KULeuven-Information: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Received: from smtps02.kuleuven.be (smtpshost02.kulnet.kuleuven.be
	[134.58.240.75])
	by cavuit01.kulnet.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E715F1382E3
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:43:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp.ulyssis.org (mail.ulyssis.student.kuleuven.be
	[193.190.253.235])
	by smtps02.kuleuven.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCC2F3862
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:43:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from wop.ulyssis.org (wop.intern.ulyssis.org [192.168.0.182])
	by smtp.ulyssis.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29887F8004
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:46:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wop.ulyssis.org (Postfix, from userid 615)
	id C49E387C185; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:43:36 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:43:36 +0200
X-Kuleuven: This mail passed the K.U.Leuven mailcluster
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20110810104316.GA30749@ulyssis.org>
References: <CAJNQ0sudgAnr9hMUMt8grSNTYswunyNnp25Uzw5t17ucxTBoGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1312971289.3253.6.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1312971289.3253.6.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
	0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
	CUSTOM_MED 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED    ADSP custom_med hit,
	and not from a mailing list
	0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service
X-Headers-End: 1Qr6gD-0001iI-W1
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Change to multiple executables?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:10:36 -0000

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:14:49PM +0200, Matt Corallo wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:36 +0000, John Smith wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > In the current mainline client everything is lugged into one
> > executable (with an optional daemon-only one). I think this is a bad
> > idea for various reasons, and would propose something like:
> >       * bitcoind: bitcoin daemon
> >       * bitcoin(-qt): bitcoin GUI executable
> >       * bitcoincl: bitcoin RPC command line
> > By default, all three would be built. In non-GUI mode, only bitcoind
> > and bitcoincl are built (the names are obviously open for
> > discussion). 
> 
> All this said, I totally agree with the more clear split of the source
> into separate library-ish components (I'm working on part of that now).
> However, I don't like the idea of splitting into more executables.  

I do agree about splitting off bitcoincl - it's kinda confusing now how
the client behaves as a rpc daemon or UI when no RPC command-line
parameters are present, and as a command-line client otherwise.

I am less sure UI and RPC should be split (though being able to select
both independently from eachother at compile time would be nice). I
often run the UI and switch to RPC calls to inspect some details.
Not sure how common this usage pattern is, though.

> If you are suggesting this so that bitcoin-qt can be distributed being
> built off of bitcoind, I would say go ahead and pull-request bitcoin-qt.
> I'm of the opinion that it should be merged whether we have autotools or
> not (we already have 5 makefiles, whats a few more options in those?)
> and jgarzik seemed to indicate that he would agree (Gavin?, sipa?
> tcatm?).

The problem is that bitcoin-qt is built using qmake, and the rest using
makefiles... so it's more than just adding an additional makefile.

That said, it seems bitcoin-qt is mature enough to replace wxbitcoin
to me, and would definitely like to see it in mainline. How streamlined
is the process of building bitcoin-qt on windows and osx? Maybe we can
switch everything to qmake (for now, as long as no maintained autotools 
is present)?

-- 
Pieter