llvm dev - Nov 2011 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
>> However, most developers do not and it is much easier to learn Python
>> than CMake.
>
> That's your opinion.
It's my experience.  Every time I look at CMake my head hurts.  :)
> And you are assuming that what you propose will not require CMake (nor
> `make') knowledge for maintainance, something that I strongly doubt.
Oh, it probably will and I agree it may be adding some complexity.
> In fact, as your proposed system deals with both build systems it acts
> as a common denominator, thus restricting the evolution of them, as some
> features that could be easy to implement on cmake but difficult on
> `make' now must go through your scripts, which act as a deterrent.
Hmm...it's a build system, right?  There's not much to add, really.
Build systems should be really simple.  All they need is dependencies
and rules to build stuff.  I don't think Daniel is considering
implementing autoconf-like capability, for example.

And make is extremely powerful.  Most projects don't even come close to
exploiting its capability.

What sorts of features can you imagine we'd want to add?

                               -Dave

greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes:
> Hmm...it's a build system, right?  There's not much to add, really.
> Build systems should be really simple.  All they need is dependencies
> and rules to build stuff.
Oh, yes, sure, you're right. <g>

[snip]
> What sorts of features can you imagine we'd want to add?
That's a question for Daniel. He is who's saying that his proposal will
make the build(s) more flexible, extensible, etc.

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
> greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes:
>
>> Hmm...it's a build system, right?  There's not much to add,
really.
>> Build systems should be really simple.  All they need is dependencies
>> and rules to build stuff.
>
> Oh, yes, sure, you're right. <g>
Can't tell if you're being snarky or not...
>> What sorts of features can you imagine we'd want to add?
>
> That's a question for Daniel. He is who's saying that his proposal
will
> make the build(s) more flexible, extensible, etc.
Er?  This is your statement, isn't it?

  > In fact, as your proposed system deals with both build systems it acts
  > as a common denominator, thus restricting the evolution of them, as some
  > features that could be easy to implement on cmake but difficult on
  > `make' now must go through your scripts, which act as a deterrent.

I'm trying to understand what you are worried about WRT a "common
denominator."

                           -Dave