Re: [xml] win32 build system


I risked a glimpse and came with no strong opinion about it. There is nothing wrong with the bakefile concept, still some inner feeling draws me away from it and I cannot tell you why.

I don't like a programming or processing language if a debugger for it is not available. I hate makefile for that, being unable to step through the processing and inspect variables. But that I must live with, because the life without a makefile would be much more miserable. In this area, I am generally reluctant to introduce levels of complexity which are not absolutely necessary and give up some flexibility in the process.
I do not agree: such build system is much more flexible in my opinion
rather than any other system I ever found.
compare the current script with libxml2.bkl: it requires to store
various makefile "templates" which should all be updated in case of
a medium/big change in library.
Also, with bakefile you don't have to generate a makefile through an
external configure script: as you could see in the ZIP, the makefiles
work perfectly and they are fully customizable as they are: no
need by the user to generate them.

Like I said, I have no strongly manifested opinion about it. How the build system works is secondary to me as long as it works and stays out of the way. If the bakefile concept gains acceptance and develops into something like Apache Ant, well, I'll use it along with the rest of the gang.

well, that bakefile can be easily used _together_ with the current
configure.js script.... it would also add support for watcom and other
compilers; it also would remove any need to update IDE project files
since they are generated by the same source.

However I know that, as you said, build system is secondary as long as it works...

In any case, I'll keep the bakefile updated and in the same location


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