I tend to agree that it would be better to stick with vanilla make.  We
want as few dependencies on non-pervasive tools as possible.

For Java, I think we have a pretty good cut at a good make system on Xalan.
While it is not automatic, it is fairly simple, and, with a little work it
can probably be made to work with a wide variety of DOS make tools, not
just Cygnus.  What I like about our system is that it doesn't compile a
file at a time... it compiles XPath, for instance, in a single line,
passing it all changed files at once.  Since Java chases down dependencies
and compiles them, this is very important for a fast build.  Xalan will do
a clean build of the xalan.jar in under two minutes, using javac, on my
Thinkpad 600.

For C++, there is no question in my mind that an automatic makemake system
should be used.

-scott




                                                                                
                                   
                    Steve                                                       
                                   
                    Suehring             To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sander van 
Zoest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>      
                    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        cc:     (bcc: Scott 
Boag/CAM/Lotus)                                       
                    edcs.com>            Subject:     Re: Make Tools (was Re: 
version numbers)                     
                                                                                
                                   
                    11/10/99                                                    
                                   
                    08:56 PM                                                    
                                   
                    Please                                                      
                                   
                    respond to                                                  
                                   
                    xerces-dev                                                  
                                   
                                                                                
                                   
                                                                                
                                   




I would much rather stick with make.  From an implementation standpoint
it's much easier to debug make on the end-user level than it is to work
with another tool.

Steve


On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Sander van Zoest wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> > > Stefano pointed out the existance of a Make tool implemented in
> > > Java, which would be more than fine with me.  I don't know how big
the
> > > download for this is, but it's worth investigating.   As far as jar
files
> > > go, that would be fine with me as well.
> > Another option would be to stick to pure 'make'. As in a subset of
'gmake'
> > :-).
>
> I would vote for a pure 'make' install mechanism, so the FreeBSD version
> could simply use the native pmake rather then requiring people to install
> gmake or any other build tool.
>
> If we do require another build tool, it would be nice if it came with the
> tarball sort of like ralfs' APACI for the apache http server.
>
> --
> Sander van Zoest
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> High Geek                                                    (858)
623-7442
> MP3.com, Inc.
http://www.mp3.com/
>





Reply via email to