On 02/01/2017 10:39 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:37:04AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:04:06PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
As I said on the bug, the downside is the addition of py3 and ninja as
build time dependencies, but I think the upside (a build system where
we don't have to worry about parallel make issues or portability)
outweighs that.
Could you please link or otherwise explain the portability issue?
I'm not talking about a specific instance, just the flexability you get
with a build system. You let it handle the details of building
executables, linking libraries, etc.
I have heard from more than one person that the OpenRC makefiles are
not written well, and I agree, so I've been looking for a build system
for a while.
I thought about autotools. I'm not really fond of its syntax, and I've
been told that, to use autotools correctly, I would need to start
generating manual release tarballs again because I would need to put the
autotools generated cruft in them.
I'm open to suggestions. I picked meson to experiment with because it
has a very nice clean syntax.
William
'TUP' is the fastest build system of the all? I believe many build
systems leverage or imitate what TUP does. I've read that for hand
crafting a specific build system, TUP is the most fundamental of the
building blocks. Here are a few links, there are many for your perusal::
http://gittup.org/tup/make_vs_tup.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12622097
I think TUP would really shine in a build system for embedded and
otherwise constrained build environments (limited resources) but I have
not vetted that theory out, as I usually lean on others with greater
depth of understanding in such matters. Still, from what I read, TUP
warrants monitoring as new code contributions keep moving this blazingly
fast build system tool forward. If others have first hand experience
with TUP, I'd very much like to read about their comments and
experiences with TUP.
hth,
James
