Agree about moving in example
Agree about your idea of clipper-rmake compatibles (or at least ispired by .rmk)

One product seem interesting and is pbmake by Phil Barnett and will be best 
substitute of hbmake 
http://www.the-oasis.net/pbmake00.htm

other interesting make system
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/470999.html
http://www.cmake.org/HTML/index.html
http://wiki.rpath.com/wiki/Conary:About_rMake



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Szakáts Viktor
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:03 PM
To: Harbour Project Main Developer List.
Subject: Re: [Harbour] Foreign libs

> 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
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour

Reply via email to