I basically flunked the build processes course and I don't actually know Make. My success rate compiling software on Linux is well under 50%. I loved the old make file because it required no configuration, etc. and everything always worked. My biggest concern is that, for new school programmers that don't use makefiles in their own projects and don't know how to fix them if something goes wrong, the build process needs to Just Work (TM) without any tweaking. I frankly don't care how messy it is under the hood.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrei@erdani.com">andrei@erdani.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I'm rewriting the Linux makefile. The existing one works well and is small, but Walter complained about it being impenetrable and I agree. It uses weird string expansions and stuff.<br>
<br>
Back when I wrote it that was the only method I could find to avoid repeating a lot of stuff for all OSs, builds, unittests, etc. Recently, inspired by Walter, I decided to go with a different approach that relies on recursive make invocations. That simplifies matters drastically: no more string expansions, no more '$$', no more crap.<br>
<br>
By this I'm asking you what you'd like to see in the makefile. What are the builds that you need and use, and what builds you'd like to use that aren't there?<br>
<br>
<br>
Andrei<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
phobos mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:phobos@puremagic.com" target="_blank">phobos@puremagic.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos" target="_blank">http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>