Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-11 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 10 Mar 2012, Marko Kreen wrote: Can I ask with what license are you distributing your project? If it's GPL-compatible, I'd be very happy to re-use some your code in Automake-NG (assuming they are not too radically different) ... ISC, but I guess you can take any snippets from there as

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-10 Thread Andrey Volkov
Hello Marko and all, Some time ago I start to write something alike, but for cmake and not for make. I.e. my scripts bunch is dedicated for: - easer porting to cmake from exists autoconf based build system - easer write autoconf oriented software Scripts itself is not a build system but a libr

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-10 Thread Marko Kreen
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 01:08:01PM -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Actually, my hack was even more generic, and allowed turnkey custom > definition of arbitrary build modes. > > BUILDMODES=prod > > was the default. > > BUILDMODES=prod debug > > was the release+debug build. A rule foreach-ed ove

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-10 Thread Marko Kreen
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:54:00AM +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 03/09/2012 11:26 PM, Marko Kreen wrote: > > > > Antimake is my attempt to fix "no good build system" problem - > > GNU Make library, but instead inventing custom conventions, > > it implements Automake syntax. > > > JFTR, we'v

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-10 Thread Sam Varshavchik
Marko Kreen writes: Antimake already has per-target object files so it should be easy to add another level of indirection. But I wonder whether it's actually necessary, as you can always do: bin_PROGRAMS = foo noinst_PROGRAMS = foo_debug foo_SOURCES = ... foo_C

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-10 Thread Marko Kreen
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 11:11:56PM -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Marko Kreen writes: > >Antimake is my attempt to fix "no good build system" problem - > >GNU Make library, but instead inventing custom conventions, > >it implements Automake syntax. > > > >Example: > > > > bin_PROGRAMS = hello > >

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-10 Thread Marko Kreen
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:52:10AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Any sense on how it compares to quagmire? >From quick look: 1. Quagmire tries to replace autoconf and libtools too, Antimake is strictly build tool. It leaves system detection to autoconf and shared libs to libtool. 2. Despite

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-09 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Marko. On 03/09/2012 11:26 PM, Marko Kreen wrote: > > Antimake is my attempt to fix "no good build system" problem - > GNU Make library, but instead inventing custom conventions, > it implements Automake syntax. > JFTR, we've recently started a (low-priority) fork of Automake aimed at taking m

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-09 Thread Sam Varshavchik
Marko Kreen writes: Antimake is my attempt to fix "no good build system" problem - GNU Make library, but instead inventing custom conventions, it implements Automake syntax. Example: bin_PROGRAMS = hello hello_SOURCES = hello.c include antimake.mk After writing such Makefile, you can r

Re: [rfc] Antimake

2012-03-09 Thread Miles Bader
Any sense on how it compares to quagmire? Thanks, -miles -- Bore, n. A person who talks when you wish him to listen.

[rfc] Antimake

2012-03-09 Thread Marko Kreen
Antimake is my attempt to fix "no good build system" problem - GNU Make library, but instead inventing custom conventions, it implements Automake syntax. Example: bin_PROGRAMS = hello hello_SOURCES = hello.c include antimake.mk After writing such Makefile, you can run 'make' immediately,