At 08:19 9/5/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: >autoconfig is garbage, sorry. You finish having two build files. The >"source" which in is some pseudo language (not ANT's) and the "compiled" >file which is ANT. Every time you modify anithing you have to remember doing >it on "source" and regenerate. Every time you modify or add more directories >or watever you have to regenerate your build file.
yep that tool sucks - doesn't mean have to reimplement it the same way though ;) >One of the beauties of ANT is that it eliminates all that crap we had to do >in make everytime you added a new package to your build. I want a one step >solution that uses a one conprenhensible file that I can understand and >maintain. No magic 3 liners that no one has an idea what is doing. Some people want it - Large projects need it as hand maintaining build files is a PITA. So for small time projects it is fine to write out full build file but for massive sprawling projects it becomes less so ... >I worked in build environments all based on make templates and at the end >they needed an entire support group to maintain the makefiles. And the worst >was that very few people understood and use what was in there. >I will argue that that level of magic is very very bad. Yep - but the groups who will usually require templating allready have build/config managers or the like. >BTW, I do not think <script> is the right tool either. I want a >"declarative" as much as possible approach. That is simple to read and >understand and it does not put constraints where they should not be one. ;) Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
