On 26 July 2017 at 18:32, Michael Forney <mfor...@mforney.org> wrote: > On 7/26/17, Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Out of curiosity, what is the point of a build system like ninja, if >> the codebase requires to be complex? > [..] > In oasis I'm using ninja like you're use stali.mk in stali. The > advantage is that dependencies are tracked throughout all packages > (not only within a package and between packages), so I can edit a file > in some library (libcurl for instance), and git, mupdf, and netsurf > all get rebuilt automatically. The disadvantage of course is it's not > a standard UNIX tool.
Many thanks for sharing this clarification and comparison. >> Isn't the issue to be tackled the >> codebase complexity then? > > Yes ideally projects like llvm and chromium would instead focus on > codebase complexity. But the argument that ninja is bad because bad > projects use it does not make sense to me. I didn't suggest that implication. It seems that ninja offers some advantages for a price, that I cannot estimate yet. Best regards, Anselm
