[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: autoconf (was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial re

From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: autoconf (was: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ANNOUNCE] tlator-0.1 initial release)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:45:58 +0100

On 2003-09-18 15:59:13 +0100 wave++ <address@hidden> wrote:
  - Relocated builds:
  - Ability to avoid recursiviness:
  - Ability to use standard make syntax:

These are possible with Make, in my experience. Maybe easier with makepp, but it's hard to tell.

  - The ability to setup arbitrarily complex rules, through perl

This looks like a bug.  Likewise building makedepend into the core.

Other systems that I tried so far and failed on me: cook, smake, GNU
Make, (the one used on freetype - jam?), and some minor others that I
don't remember about :P.

Oh well, whatever works for you. I'll probably go look again at jam. I'm not sure any has enough advantage to be worth the cost, as with others.

Returning to the original point, most people on the list seem to appreciate that arch is an quantum leap on from CVS. It's not clear that any of the alternative build tools have made a similar size leap forwards from Make. They still try to solve essentially the same problem: construct a DAG and solve it.

MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]