On 3 April 2012 09:23, Andrew Wiley <wiley.andre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen <xtzgzo...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 03-04-2012 04:35, Andrew Wiley wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen<xtzgzo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 03-04-2012 01:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03/04/12 00:48, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Waf meta build system has good support for both GDC and LDC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm reluctant to use Waf due to the issues described here ... :-( >>>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00714.html >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which ones in particular? Debian lacking a system-level Waf doesn't seem >>>> like a huge issue to me. >>>> >>> >>> Unless you want someone else to build your software. >> >> >> Include the Waf binary with your software. It's designed to be small so that >> you can do this. >> >> >>> My biggest frustration with open source software and specifically with >>> meta build systems is that I don't want to learn a scripting language >>> or a scripting language's package manager just to build and use a >>> piece of software in a completely unrelated language, and if there's >>> no pre-packaged version of a build system, I'm not going to take the >>> time to figure out how to use whatever package manager language X uses >>> to install that build system and all dependencies. Most likely the >>> dependencies and build system will wind up in my home directory, which >>> is hackish at best, and it'll all sit there forever and clutter up my >>> home directory because I'll never touch that package manager again. >>> For a build that will be set up exactly once and modified extremely >>> rarely after the first month or so, how is this an improvement over >>> this Makefile that can already do perfect incremental builds: >>> >>> TARGET := someexecutable >>> SRCS := $(shell find -type f -name '*.d') >>> OBJS := ${SRCS:.d=.o} >>> DEPS := ${SRCS:.d=.dep} >>> XDEPS := $(wildcard ${DEPS}) >>> DC := gdc >>> >>> DFLAGS = -Wall -Werror -g -O2 >>> LDFLAGS = >>> LIBS = -lpthread >>> >>> .PHONY: all clean distclean >>> all:: ${TARGET} >>> >>> ifneq (${XDEPS},) >>> include ${XDEPS} >>> endif >>> >>> ${TARGET}: ${OBJS} >>> ${DC} ${LDFLAGS} ${DFLAGS} -o $@ $^ ${LIBS} >>> >>> ${OBJS}: %.o: %.d %.dep >>> ${DC} ${DFLAGS} -o $@ -c $< >>> >>> ${DEPS}: %.dep: %.d >>> ${DC} ${DFLAGS} -fsyntax-only -fmake-mdeps=$@ $< >>> sed -i 's:$(notdir ${<:.d=.o}):${<:.d=.o}:g' $@ >>> >>> clean:: >>> -rm -f ${OBJS} ${DEPS} ${TARGET} >>> >>> distclean:: clean >> >> >> I understand your frustration about having to learn another language. >> Learning a language is always an expensive task. But people don't >> necessarily know Make syntax, just as they don't necessarily know Python, or >> whatever (and I might add that Make can get very frustrating - the >> requirement to use hard tabs is extremely annoying and unintuitive). >> > Either way, you're going to set up your build system once and rarely > change it, so the syntax isn't really what bothers me. What matters > isn't really the difficulty of setting up the build system, it's the > difficulty of going from blank slate to finished binary for someone > who has just downloaded the code. For better or worse, systems like > make are ubiquitous, whereas with other build systems, I have to go > install it. That still isn't too bad if there's a package I can > install in the package manager I already use to manage my system, but > when the developers actively discourage that convenience, I become > concerned. > >> A problem with systems like Make is that it is hard to keep Makefiles >> portable. It doesn't take much to accidentally introduce some sort of >> platform/shell/compiler dependency. Python, as a programming language, at >> least helps abstract most of these things away (for instance, shell syntax). > > Thanks to MSYS/MinGW, that Makefile I quoted runs on both Windows and > Linux. It depends on find and sed. The dependency on find is easily > removed if you're not too lazy to list source files like I am, and the > sed dependency can be removed if you don't care too much about perfect > incremental builds (there's probably a Windows shell equivalent, I > haven't checked). > I don't have a Mac, but I wouldn't expect sed/find to be an issue there. > >> Anyway, as for what 'language' to use, it all comes down to your personal >> situation. If you know Python, using something like Waf is completely >> inexpensive, just as using Make is inexpensive if you know the Make syntax. > > I don't know Make syntax and I have no interest in learning it. What > you see above was cobbled together once from a variety of online > sources, tested thoroughly, and reused abusively because the only > thing necessary to use it was to copy it to a new project. No large > language installations, no oversized frameworks or tools. It works > with most linux distributions out of the box, and on Windows you > already have to install GCC (which includes make) to get GDC.
Make is fairly simple. What makes it the complex beast it is - IMO - when used in conjunction with autotools. :-) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
