Modules/packages correspondence to file system

[Derek]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:44:50 -0500, BCS wrote:

> Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
>> BCS wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> I have some builds that have more non-D than D parts.
>> 
>> Depending on the details, you should be fine with BRF (Build Response 
>> File) and properly set up RDF (Rules Definition File) entry for the 
>> non-D parts.
>> 
>>> I have some builds that need the same file to be compiled several 
>>> times under different version settings.
>> 
>> Now that's a tough one.  Could use a batch to explicitly compile that 
>> module a few times, with the different settings, followed by an 
>> invocation to build, and include in your BRF a directive to ignore that 
>> module.  Still a little much though.
>> 
>> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
> 
> Build is good for what it does, mostly D projects that might have a few 
> non D parts. But it seems a bit clumsy when things start getting more 
> complicated.

Agreed. However, I would like to hear from people about the "more
complicated" builds so that maybe I can do something about them.
Personally, I try to avoid complications of this sort ;-)

I'm currently looking at the "multiple compile" idea in which a source can
be made to under go mutliple compiles with different switch/options each
time.

> I just had a neat thought, build figures out all of the dependencies of 
> a build, could it be made to generate a makefile that will have the same 
> effect?

Yes it could, but why? 

It already creates a kind of makefile - the response files for the compiler
and linker.

-- 
Derek Parnell