Re: [xml] win32 build system

["Francesco Montorsi" <f18m_cpp217828 yahoo it>]

Hi,

> 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
(http://www.geocities.com/f18m_cpp217828/prog/libxml2_win32.zip);

Ciao,
Francesco