IMO a make system is important
My suggestion is made something siple as sostititive for hbmake so
/ PDH Project Definition Harbour - File created by hbmake Version 2.0
Date: 21.10.08 Time: 15:32:27
WARNINGLEVEL = 0
COMPILE_FLAG = -DEURO
GUI = YES
OBJ = objpath
[myproject.exe] = myprg1.prg ,myprg2.prg, my sample prg3.prg,
mytest.ch
mysamplec.c ,express.res, lang.lib ,vm.lib, rtl.lib, pcrepos.lib,
rdd.lib, macro.lib, pp.lib, dbfntx.lib, bmdbfcdx.lib, dbfcdx.lib,
dbffpt.lib ,hbsix.lib ,common.lib,gtwvt.lib, codepage.lib ,ct.lib
,tip.lib ,rddads.lib ,ace32.lib, c:\mypath\mylib.lib ,wvtgui.lib
IMO no other variable is necessary in hbmake
This project definition pdh is Simple to create, simple to post on ng
Maybe, but I've in person rarely if ever seen such a make
file posted. (I don't follow user targeted lists, though,
maybe there, such can be seen). Nor could I make use of it, BTW.
"Make system" is indeed important, but it's the current
one doesn't work, so instead of being useful and solve
questions, it's creating new ones.
hbmk -pc myproject.pdh // for project compiling
hbmk -pp myproject.pdh // wizard for create new project
hbmk -f myproject.pdh // for complete rebuild project
hbmk -p show pdh createted for compile
list of phd files will start if you exec hbmk without parameter
old parameter remain for compatibility
What do you think?
I myself don't believe in interactive make "wizards".
Make is by nature highly automatized, customized, platform
and development environment dependent, so usually quite
complicated stuff, and it's rarely needed to create new
ones in an ad-hoc fashion. In those rare cases there is
always where to look for some working examples to adopt
in a few minutes. (there are plenty of examples even in
Harbour: contrib libs, contrib examples, bld/make bats).
I agree with Lorenzo's description for hbmake.
I am not able starting this working but is something start (and is a
prg) I can test and implement
hbmake was created with such goal, 9 years ago, you can
see where it stands now. I personally think the basic goal
of hbmake is wrong. In any case we'd need active _developers_
and a clear vision for such a tool (any tool). I personally
cannot contribute in either areas regarding hbmake. If
there are any takers _now_, good, otherwise I'd vote to
move hbmake to contrib/examples/.
As an aside, I myself have some make problems locally,
...still using rmake, which is choking on GCC, and
on large projects in general. So, I think it would be a
true-to-the-goal and useful idea to implement an rmake
compatible, but portable tool in Harbour. Notice the goal
is completely different from the current hbmake. This also
needs takers though, and there is the thing that several
make packages exist even on the OSS scene, so some may
consider it a duplicate effort.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
