Dear Ben,
I believe Sergey Matveev here is much more of an expert on this matter
than I am,
seeing how he has even developed his own high-performance implementation.
Nevertheless, these are some of the reasons I care about redo, in no
particular order:
- It does not suffer from the same obvious
Dear Sergey,
Thank you for your reply!
Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb Sergey Matveev
:
> Just out of curiosity, why POSIX shell abilities are not enough for that task?
>
> read D < "$2".d
> redo-ifchange ${D#* }
>
> POSIX "read" out-of-box understands \-newlines that can appea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
What's wrong with plain old make? I don't think there's a need to write
more build tools when one is already enough; if we keep writing build
tools we'll end up with tools like autoconf.
Ben Raskin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iHUEARYIAB0WIQSVj5
Greetings!
*** Thomas Oltmann [2021-09-07 19:50]:
>This tool is able to parse the dependency-only Makefiles that modern C
>compilers can
>produce during compilation, and feed these dependencies into redo (via
>'redo-ifchange').
Just out of curiosity, why POSIX shell abilities are not enough for t
Hi everybody!
redo is a pretty well-designed family of build-systems
that enjoys a certain popularity among people on this mailing list.
Its recursive nature makes it well-suited to projects comprising a
large amount of files.
However, unlike comparable build-systems like make or tup, it lacks pr
