On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:07:09 -0400 Norman Ramsey wrote: > I would like to replicate what nmake :PACKAGE: does without using > nmake, since I am trying to cut down on build-system dependencies. > This decision is partly at the behest of my colleague and partly > because I continue to have difficulties getting bin/package to work > the way I expect, which leads me to wonder whether I can distribute > something based on AST that others will be able to build on systems > different from mine.
you will get more leverage figuring out why "bin/package make" fails to build nmake -- I and ast-users can help with that one of the foundations of ast software (ksh first and then nmake) is portability -- if it fails at then I want to know > The ? is that I have gotten quite interested in understanding the > details of how nmake works. I am hoping to persuade the Glasgow > Haskell Compiler project either to switch to nmake or to incorporate > some of nmake's good ideas into their own build system. Growing a > formal model of nmake seems like a good next step, and :PACKAGE: is a > not entirely random place to pull. a convincing argument would be to set up the entire project with nmake for all target architectures, culminating with a comparsion between the nmake infrastructure against the status quo a less persuasive argument would be "you should use nmake because ..." _______________________________________________ ast-users mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
