Hi,
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 01:35:02PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
I found some info on creating loops in gnu make, but it didn't seem
possible to have loops in pure bsd make.
Well, why would it need to work with BSD Make? Gmake is available as an
optional tool pretty much everywhere -- and
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:50:12PM +0200, Julien Rioux wrote:
I had a look at website.make, and it strikes me as a shell script
written in make.
That's quite a fair assesement.
You of course have loops in make, attached you find a short rewrite
of that particular snippet. I can probably
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 07:01:04PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
Instead I've made two scripts depend_ly and depen_tex [1] which finds
out what depends on what (think gcc -M), and make [2] takes care of
the rest.
I think that's precisely the right thing to do :-)
Would it be good to make
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:12:14AM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
I will admit there is one aspect in which I *am* spoiled, though: I am
totally spoiled by python's readable code. I am so accustomed to
writing stuff like
cmd = compiler + ' -o ' + exe_name + src_files
or
cmd
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:12:44AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
It might be true that Python is more readable for newcomers than make
(though reading your examples, I'm not at all convinced of that...) --
but how much does that really matter?
Many people already have some familiarity
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:41:05PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
This didn't happen for fun and giggles. Over the years, we've
built up hack upon hack, and
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 08:33:45AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't do Python or many newfangled languages. I have worked with Make
for over 20 years. The casual contributor will be one used to the
technology and thinking underlying Lilypond. More likely than not
someone with more than a
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 08:33:45AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't do Python or many newfangled languages. I have worked with Make
for over 20 years. The casual contributor will be one used to the
technology and thinking underlying
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:50:52AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
Yes, various expert FLOSS members (such as Reinhold, Carl, and
IIRC yourself) have stepped forward to fix a few things in the
builds -- but the only people who are working on
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:50:52AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
Yes, various expert FLOSS members (such as Reinhold, Carl, and
IIRC yourself) have stepped forward to fix a few things in the
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Yes, various expert FLOSS members (such as Reinhold, Carl, and
IIRC yourself) have stepped forward to fix a few things in the
builds -- but the only people who are working on the build
system full time are windows
David Kastrup:
...
The main problem I see is that dependencies don't work out, and that
presumably is mostly because the temporary/work files of lilypond-book
are not in the rules and get stomped over by parallel make.
...
I have given up on lilypond-book and make.
Instead I've made two
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from
make. I know it's been used in loads of projects and is much loved,
but actually, from
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:08:26PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from
make. I
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
If I was writing a make system from scratch, I would describe
dependencies in data structures that are viewable and editable, and
have a separate program that uses those structures to determine which
files
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:41:05PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
This didn't happen for fun and giggles. Over the years, we've
built up hack upon hack, and ended up with this unholy mess.
You sound
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:12:14AM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:41:05PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
You sound spoiled.
On second thought, I really *am* spoiled: I don't want to even
notice the build system. I view it in the same way I view food:
a waste of time
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Given that Cmake has a large following (examples include KDE and
LLVM), I'd be comfortable with switching to that.
Interesting; have you ever used Cmake?
Lately I've been doing tweaks to
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Given that Cmake has a large following (examples include KDE and
LLVM), I'd be comfortable with switching to that.
Interesting; have you ever used Cmake?
Last time I looked (migrated a cmake project to autotools), Cmake did
only have proprietary documentation (I hear
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:06:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
Given that Cmake has a large following (examples include KDE and
LLVM), I'd be comfortable with switching to that.
Interesting; have you ever used Cmake?
I migrated Marsyas (a moderately-sized
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether it's
worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from make. I
know it's been used in loads of projects and is much loved, but actually,
from a design perspective, it's appalling. If I was writing a make system
Am Freitag, 12. August 2011, 15:53:56 schrieb Phil Holmes:
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether it's
worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from make.
I suppose that everyone here would be glad if we could get away from make.
It's just
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from
make.
Any simplification is welcomed, I think.
I've done 5 minutes research and have found SCons. I've not gone
into any more depth with that yet. Does
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from
make.
Budget 2000 hours. That's not a typo. I don't think it provides
a good cost/benefit
On 8/12/11 9:32 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from
make.
Budget 2000 hours
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:51:46AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 8/12/11 9:32 AM, Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
waf looks the nicest at first glance, but they don't support
having files with the same name in the source tree and build tree,
I've been loosely following
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net wrote:
I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether it's
worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from make. I
know it's been used in loads of projects and is much loved, but actually
27 matches
Mail list logo
