Hi,
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 01:35:02PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> I found some info on creating loops in gnu make, but it didn't seem
> possible to have loops in pure bsd make.
Well, why would it need to work with BSD Make? Gmake is available as an
optional tool pretty much everywhere -- an
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 02:50:12PM +0200, Julien Rioux wrote:
>
> I had a look at website.make, and it strikes me as a shell script
> written in make.
That's quite a fair assesement.
> You of course have loops in make, attached you find a short rewrite
> of that particular snippet. I can probabl
On 01/10/2011 2:35 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:12:44AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
It might be true that Python is more readable for newcomers than make
(though reading your examples, I'm not at all convinced of that...) --
but how much does that really matter
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 02:12:44AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> It might be true that Python is more readable for newcomers than make
> (though reading your examples, I'm not at all convinced of that...) --
> but how much does that really matter?
Many people already have some familiarit
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 07:01:04PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
> Instead I've made two scripts depend_ly and depen_tex [1] which finds
> out what depends on what (think gcc -M), and make [2] takes care of
> the rest.
I think that's precisely the right thing to do :-)
> Would it be good to mak
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:12:14AM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> I will admit there is one aspect in which I *am* spoiled, though: I am
> totally spoiled by python's readable code. I am so accustomed to
> writing stuff like
> cmd = compiler + ' -o ' + exe_name + src_files
> or
>
David Kastrup:
...
> The main problem I see is that dependencies don't work out, and that
> presumably is mostly because the temporary/work files of lilypond-book
> are not in the rules and get stomped over by parallel make.
...
I have given up on lilypond-book and make.
Instead I've made two scri
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> Yes, various expert FLOSS members (such as Reinhold, Carl, and
> IIRC yourself) have stepped forward to fix a few things in the
> builds -- but the only people who are "working" on the build
> system "full time" are windows users.
> (that s
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:50:52AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>> > Yes, various expert FLOSS members (such as Reinhold, Carl, and
>> > IIRC yourself) have stepped forward to fix a few things in the
>> > builds -- but the only people who a
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 09:50:52AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > Yes, various expert FLOSS members (such as Reinhold, Carl, and
> > IIRC yourself) have stepped forward to fix a few things in the
> > builds -- but the only people who are "working" on the build
> > sys
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 08:33:45AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I don't do Python or many newfangled languages. I have worked with Make
>> for over 20 years. The casual contributor will be one used to the
>> technology and thinking underlying Lilypond. More likely t
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 08:33:45AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> I don't do Python or many newfangled languages. I have worked with Make
> for over 20 years. The casual contributor will be one used to the
> technology and thinking underlying Lilypond. More likely than not
> someone with more tha
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:41:05PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Graham Percival
>> wrote:
>> > This didn't happen for fun and giggles. Over the years, we've
>> > built up hack upon hack, and ended up with this unholy mess.
>>
>>
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 03:12:14AM +0100, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:41:05PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> > You sound spoiled.
On second thought, I really *am* spoiled: I don't want to even
notice the build system. I view it in the same way I view food:
a waste of tim
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:41:05PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
> > This didn't happen for fun and giggles. Over the years, we've
> > built up hack upon hack, and ended up with this unholy mess.
>
> You sound spoiled.
Why, because I
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
>> > If I was writing a "make" system from scratch, 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.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:08:26PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>
> > I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
> > it's worth thinking the unthinkabl
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes 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 mu
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>> Given that Cmake has a large following (examples include KDE and
>> LLVM), I'd be comfortable with switching to that.
>
> Interesting; have you ever used Cmake?
Lately I've been doing tweaks to parallel compil
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:06:29AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>
> > Given that Cmake has a large following (examples include KDE and
> > LLVM), I'd be comfortable with switching to that.
>
> Interesting; have you ever used Cmake?
I migrated Marsyas (a moderately-s
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> Given that Cmake has a large following (examples include KDE and
> LLVM), I'd be comfortable with switching to that.
Interesting; have you ever used Cmake?
Last time I looked (migrated a cmake project to autotools), Cmake did
only have proprietary documentation (I hear
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Phil Holmes 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 a
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:51:46AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 8/12/11 9:32 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
> > waf looks the nicest at first glance, but they don't support
> > having files with the same name in the source tree and build tree,
>
> I've been loosely following waf, and I think
On 8/12/11 9:32 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
>> it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from
>>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Phil Holmes 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.
Budget 2000 hours. That's not a typo. I don't think it
> I understand it's been discussed before, but I am wondering whether
> it's worth thinking the unthinkable and considering moving away from
> make.
Any simplification is welcomed, I think.
> I've done 5 minutes research and have found SCons. I've not gone
>
Am Freitag, 12. August 2011, 15:53:56 schrieb Phil Holmes:
> 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 suppose that everyone here would be glad if we could get away from make.
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
