Re: Question: Cross compilation

[David Kastrup]

Chris Yate <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>> That's pretty good, actually.  Not being able to do native/online
>> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly
>> even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it
>> already) are of course welcome:
>
>
> David,
>
> At a brief look over GUB, the really big question in my mind is why on
> earth it seems to want to build *everything*.

It wants to be _able_ to build everything, like autoconf.

> A Lilypond build tool for all platforms = a great idea.
> A Lilypond build tool for all platforms to which someone's added half a
> dozen extra unrelated targets (possibly very large ones such as OpenOffice)
> = a terrible idea.

You don't need to touch or maintain or use the OpenOffice rules.

> If I did anything to "fix" it, it would be to strip it right back to a
> tool that does _one_ job well. And I don't know whether that's likely
> to be popular thing (although correct me if I'm wrong there)...

I don't see the point.  It won't build OpenOffice unless you ask it to.

> ... because IMHO a build tool that takes 24+ hours to rebuild after
> making tweaks to it --and that's on a high spec machine-- is not a
> very useful tool.

You'll find that none of the 24+ hours are spent in relation to
OpenOffice.  The OpenOffice configuration affects the download size of
GUB, but that's a one-time cost and rather small.

-- 
David Kastrup