List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Warren Young Date:August 30 2005 12:15am
Subject:Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU make
View as plain text  
Chris Frey wrote:
> 
> it's always a huge relief to see VC++ project files available, since it
> indicates somebody has already been down that path before.

I could see that view if we were shipping generic Makefiles...back 
before autotools, most open source projects had just a single Makefile 
and you'd have to edit it just to get the thing to build.  (Assuming it 
would build out of the box at all...)  makemake isn't as powerful as the 
autotools, of course, but it's a lot better than the scenario I just 
described.  Just the fact that the command is "makemake vc" tells you 
that someone, somewhere put some thought into the Visual C++ case.

> When you need special build tools,
> a GNU tool chain, or something external, it is often not documented well,
> and there are problems down the line.

If documentation is the only problem, I think I've proven that I can 
handle that.

What I _can't_ handle is implementing every little feature people want 
using inadequate tools.  Here's a challenge for you: someone asked for 
separate release and debug binary directories.  Implement _that_ using 
just a single nmake-compatible Makefile, without duplicating the entire 
structure for both cases.  I can do it in GNU make no problem.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the latest edition of O'Reilly's 
make(1) book is GNU-specific.  They no longer even bother covering the 
old tools that inspired GNU make.  Only the trivial examples in chapter 
1 will even run on anything but GNU make.

Face it, GNU make has won.  Only question is, who doesn't know it yet?

It's not like I'm suggesting Jam or something like that here...

> Have you ever tried to build mozilla on windows? 

So I won't make it difficult, then.

There will always be newbie problems, Chris.  We have people here 
posting to the list because they don't have the MySQL development files 
installed for Bob's sake.  There's a point where more help just isn't 
helpful to anyone.

> keeping the build process simple.

I can go with that, too, but along with it, you get fewer features.  And 
that's exactly the source of most of the complaints of makemake.

And no, don't tell me to go back to project files.  Won't happen. 
They're fine anywhere you have just one tool chain and can mandate a 
particular version of it.  Beyond that, fuggedaboutit.

Actually, there's one exception.  It would be Really Neat (TM) if 
someone wrote a tool that would work with autotools to auto-generate 
project files for VC++ and such.  Could be done.  But not by me this week.
Thread
VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young29 Aug
  • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey29 Aug
    • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young30 Aug
      • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey30 Aug
        • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young31 Aug
          • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey31 Aug
            • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young31 Aug
              • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeChris Frey1 Sep
                • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young1 Sep
    • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeThomas Werth30 Aug
      • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeWarren Young31 Aug
        • Re: VC++ users: new proposed requirement for GNU makeThomas Werth31 Aug