On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:52:25AM +0300, Martin Bochnig wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Bart Smaalders <bart.smaalders at sun.com> >> wrote: >> > No. Each consolidation has different build infrastructure and >> > procedures; >> >> Yes, exactly. >> Is this a necessity? > > No, but it's almost certainly how it would end up happening no matter > what. > >> Wouldnt it be cheaper if all used the same? > > Not really. ?Different consolidations have different needs and may work > very differently from others. ?Consider Source Jucr (not a > consolidation, yet, but it's very much like a consolidation): database- > and spec file- driven, with a web front-end. ?That's completely > different from ON. ?Making Jucr adhere to ON's build style would defeat > Jucr's purpose. ?But ON has no use for Jucr's database- and spec > file-driven scheme. ?SFW follows the ON model, with various resulting > quirks (you can't really split FOSS builds into "commands", "libraries", > etcetera -- but SFW forces you to sort FOSS into "commands", > "libraries", and so on). ?SFW could be converted to Jucr, someday. ?Java > probably has a very different build system. ?Imagine making Java, which > is multi-platform, have an ON-style build system (ON only builds on > Solaris)! ?And so on, and on. > >> That was what I objected to. I am just not 100% sure and I wanted to >> bring this question onto the table to see your responses. Only for >> consideration. > > Your objection isn't about architecture though. > > Nico
Objection may have been the wrong word. (lost in translation ...) As I said: It was a question. And as for the limitations you mentioned: Thanks for this detailed summary. Although: Different needs could also be addressed by a single system (with corresponding case handling). And specifically: > is multi-platform, have an ON-style build system (ON only builds on > Solaris)! And so on, and on. If you would drop Studio and would globally switch to gcc, you would not only save lots of R&D, but additionally you could relatively easily support cross-compilation (x86/SPARC, also on LinUX etc ... ). But this is another situation again, where Sun spends extra money for ending up in less flexibility. So actually you pay twice. Note: This is not a rant by any means. Just a bit of wondering and a few thoughts attempted to express. %martin
