Replacing Make for the DMD build

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 21:26:02 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, June 19, 2017 1:45:27 PM MDT meppl via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 June 2017 at 09:19:32 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>> > On Friday, 16 June 2017 at 06:30:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> >> A direct question to Walter and Andrei really.
>> >>
>> >> If someone, let us say Russel Winder, create a CMake/Ninja 
>> >> and/or Meson/Ninja build for DMD, is there any chance of it 
>> >> being allowed to replace the Make system?
>> >>
>> >> If the answer is no, then Russel will obviously not waste 
>> >> his time doing something that will not be accepted.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> > Why replacing a rock-stable Make with build-system-X that 
>> > most likely adds another dependency. I am with Walter on 
>> > this one. - We should continue using Make unless there is a 
>> > real need for something else. DMD's makefiles are really 
>> > simple!
>>
>> is there a point in disallowing several alternate build systems
>> residing in the dmd repository?
>> If it is just allowed to upload README-files and make-files of
>> alternate build systems etc, it would not be necessary to waste
>> time with this discussion here.
>
> Having alternate build systems means maintaining more than one 
> build system. The main reason that a number of us would like to 
> see make replaced is to _reduce_ the maintenance requirements, 
> not increase them.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

No, as I noted earlier in this thread, all you have to do is keep 
the Makefiles up to date, and dump the maintenance burden for 
Meson/reggae build scripts on their proponents, who in turn don't 
have to keep them up to date.  Once the project contributors have 
solid experience with the Make alternatives, you consider making 
a switch.