On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Phil Holmes <em...@philholmes.net> wrote: > I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether it's > worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from make. I > know it's been used in loads of projects and is much loved, but actually, > from a design perspective, it's appalling. If I was writing a "make" system > from scratch,
Careful: many people have tried writing something better, and most attempts failed. It is not a trivial problem. > I would describe dependencies in data structures that are > viewable and editable, and have a separate program that uses those > structures to determine which files need making. Instead we have a fairly > impenetrable system of makefiles that are created by (to me) a completely > impenetrable autoconf system, and the only way of checking dependencies is > to open all the makefiles (sourcefiles in effect) and read and understand > each. It's rather as if one had to read the LilyPond .cpp files to > understand how to change a piece of music. We tried scons for a while, but it is extremely slow for incremental builds. Given that Cmake has a large following (examples include KDE and LLVM), I'd be comfortable with switching to that. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
