[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Gnu-arch-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 32

From: Jan Hudec
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Gnu-arch-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 32
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:58:55 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/

On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 17:17:17 -0300, Juarez Rudsatz wrote:
> | From: Tom Lord <address@hidden>
> | Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Managing changes to projects that
> | use autoco nf/automake with tla
> | On the one hand, I'm dissatisfied with the implementation of
> | package-framework.  Not the design -- just the implementation.
> | I can just _feel_ it starting to get unweildy.   To fix it, I want to
> | get rid of GNU make and sh both -- and that's not a small problem.  I
> | want to replace them with something small enough to be distributed
> | with packages.   So, in general terms, extending the current
> | implementation indefinately is not my favorite idea, although my
> | favorite alternative is a Big Project.
> Have you looked at Jam already ?

There seem to be *3* Jams!

The (perforce) Jam. --
The FreeType Jam.   --
The Boost Jam.      --
(and all three are in debian now as jam, ftjam and bjam resp.)

Each seems to be an enhancement of the previous, at least acoording to
the respective authors. They are (except the last) smaller binaries than
gnu make.

                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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