On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:14:50PM -0700, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> At Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:47:02 +0100, Benny Siegert wrote:
> Subject: Re: Portable Makefile ideas
> >
> > Perhaps take a look at CMake. I found it to be easier than expected,
> > and it is common enough t
At Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:47:02 +0100, Benny Siegert wrote:
Subject: Re: Portable Makefile ideas
>
> Perhaps take a look at CMake. I found it to be easier than expected,
> and it is common enough that package systems like pkgsrc support it
> directly.
I see I'm late to the game here,
In article <20190210204645.b6d0fd7478f526017d69b...@googlemail.com> you write:
>I've had a quick look at various howtos, and I will look in more detail
>in a few days. However can you elaborate on how CMake handles different
>build environments. For example, does it automatically know different
Op zo feb 10 2019, om 18:40 schreef Sad Clouds:
> So the idea is to keep it small and simple, i.e. a few variable, some
> simple if/else logic and "Bob's your Uncle".
make is good as a build tool, not so much as a portable configuration
tool. Hence, when using make, I'd suggest keeping the
Hello,
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 09:14:45PM +, Sad Clouds wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:53:21 +0100
> tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>
> > http://downloads.kergis.com/kertex/risk_comp_1.16.9.0.tar.gz
> >
> > It cost me at the beginning less time to write it than to try to
> > understand how
> On Feb 10, 2019, at 11:25 PM, Sad Clouds wrote:
>
> Hello, I've been looking into ways of writing portable Makefiles and
> would like to ask for ideas and find out what works for various people.
I have very much liked devel/mk-configure from pkgsrc because it closely
follows the idea of
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:53:21 +0100
tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> http://downloads.kergis.com/kertex/risk_comp_1.16.9.0.tar.gz
>
> It cost me at the beginning less time to write it than to try to
> understand how the other tools work (and not all have the
> requirements I mentionned).
Hello,
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 19:47:02 +0100
Benny Siegert wrote:
> My hot take on this: Don't roll your own build system.
>
> No matter how easy and portable you think you made it, it is not going
> to be working for part of your users (think Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc.,
> with a number of architectures
Hello,
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 05:40:26PM +, Sad Clouds wrote:
> Hello, I've been looking into ways of writing portable Makefiles and
> would like to ask for ideas and find out what works for various people.
>
> First, I would like to set out a few basic requirements:
>
> 1. It needs to be
My hot take on this: Don't roll your own build system.
No matter how easy and portable you think you made it, it is not going
to be working for part of your users (think Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc.,
with a number of architectures each), and it is not going to be
trivial to understand for packagers.
Hello, I've been looking into ways of writing portable Makefiles and
would like to ask for ideas and find out what works for various people.
First, I would like to set out a few basic requirements:
1. It needs to be small, simple and easy to maintain. So I guess this
would rule out tools like
11 matches
Mail list logo
