Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: separate build directory support for Chicken

[Elf]

at a guess, i imagine that the reason for felix (and chicken) using gnu make
is that a) its available for all platforms supported by chicken and b) its 
common on all of these platforms.   i suppose if you wanted to port bsd's make
as a mingw alternative, or make it available for cygwin, solaris, hpux, sunos,
etc, it would be feasible.  unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, this
hasnt been done, or if it has done its far from being widely known or 
available.

far be it from me to defend gnu's make.  i personally find it hideous.  (tbh,
i find makefiles in general a hideous hack.  but thats irrelevant.)  however,
the one thing i can say for it is that its there, on every box ive been on,
at least for the last 10 years.  whereas ive only seen or used a bsd make on
openbsd.

-elf

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Aleksej Saushev wrote:

> Ivan Shmakov <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > > > > > > Alex Queiroz <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > >> The following patch implements the support for building in a
> > >> separate directory, like:
> >
> > > Just a thought but, won't adding lots of features to the plain
> > > makefiles build system make it so complex as to become unmanageable?
> >
> >         Actually, I'm planning a build system rewrite which, by
> >         utilising some of the GNU Make features, will make the build
> >         system /much more/ manageable.  I've already reduced rules.make
> >         down to 38 KiB (i. e., by 40%) and it doesn't look that I'm
> >         going to stop just yet.
>
> Why have you chosen GNU make then?  BSD make OBJDIR does what you want
> without separate build directory preparation step.
>
> You can do the same OBJDIR with GNU make too, why sticking to unintuitive
> concept?  Any reasoning?
>
> >         The primary cause for delaying the rewrite is that I'm trying to
> >         prepare a script, so that the validness of the changes could be
> >         more easily checked.  (Though it obviously isn't strictly
> >         necessary.)
> >
> > PS.  Would there be a plenty of Make and Autotools experts among the
> >         Chicken developers, I'd be happy to suggest a transition to
> >         Autotools.  Apparently, it's not the case, so I'm trying to do
> >         my best with the plain GNU Make-based build system.
>
> Autotools are not needed as long as system properly advertises itself
> or its own properties.  Operating systems are not that diverse nowadays,
> hence guessing is mostly trivial, but it takes time to maintain
> those horrible "configure" scripts.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-hackers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers