Jussi Pakkanen
Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:06:03 -0800
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Thorsten Behrens <t...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> I think it's cleaner, and there's definitely not much (should I say > any?) redundancy left. Additionally, one can enhance the script to > generate makefiles for pretty much every make tool of this world, > including eclipse/netbeans/visual studio project files. I would like to point out that what you are doing is generating your own language and a build tool/generator based on that. There's nothing wrong with it as such, but this is reinventing the wheel again (just like Google's GYP). Instead of custom dmake/build.pl you would have custom gnumakegen/gnumake_or_something. What is the benefit you get from this instead of using something like CMake that already has a mature implementation of this functionality? Even if CMake eventually turns out to be too slow, would it not make more sense to write your own custom CMake back end rather than the configuration/generation front end? For further information here is a Google Tech Talk about CMake and all related things (testing, code coverity, packaging, etc, etc) by one of the creators. If the build tool decision is not yet final, it is worth watching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ut9o4OdSC0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org