|
From: | Brandon J. Van Every |
Subject: | Re: [Chicken-users] alternate build tools |
Date: | Tue, 04 Oct 2005 19:36:10 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) |
Thomas Chust wrote:
Am 03.10.2005, 15:47 Uhr, schrieb Patrick Brannan <address@hidden>:Aren't you being rather premature in your pronouncement? There's probably some way to do it, it probably just requires different output directories or something. It takes time to RTFM. I think you're not paying enough attention to a more basic point: Thomas got this thing actually working with ease in a weekend. That's highly encouraging. If debug versions really do have to be called *_d, so what? If it's otherwise an easy, reliable, high quality build system, that's a good tradeoff.[...]1. Note that I had to name the exe chicken_d. I could easily rename it in alater step, but the point is that CMake doesn't seem to easily supportcustom file names. Files will be named for the target plus the appropriateextension.2. Setting source file properties is a global operation where the last setwins. So I haven't found an easy way to combine both static and dynamiclinking. I even tried listing the source files twice and setting properties differently on each listing. The file sets seem to be global entities thatcan accept only one set of properties. [...]However promising CMake looked to me, this doesn't sound like a terribly well designed core of the system...
Nothing in open source is perfect. Chicken is *hardly* perfect on Windows off-the-shelf. Does that mean I run around giving up on stuff, saying it's a "not terribly well designed core system?" In the worst case, if we want it to be perfect, we submit a patch to the CMake authors. It's open source after all.
Cheers, Brandon J. Van Every (cruise (director (of SeaFunc) '(Seattle Functional Programmers))) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeaFunc
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |