Vaclav Slavik wrote:
>>Yes, the state of the docs concerns me, too. Too many FIXMEs and
>>too much hand-waving.
> Not sure what you mean by "hand-waving",
It's a rhetorical technique used to distract the listener so they don't
stop to analyze the argument for completeness or rigorous logic. :)
Just as an example, I do not see anywhere in the docs where the -f
switch is completely documented. That makes it hard to evaluate just
what Bakefile is capable of generating. I had to read the change log to
get a sense of Bakefile's scope.
But my documentation critiques weren't aimed at you. They were just
observations for this mailing list, in the context of evaluating it for
our needs. I would have made a list of specific problems (or maybe even
provided patches) if I had intended those comments for you. In fact, if
I do start using Bakefile, I'm quite likely to start patching the docs,
since you're also using DocBook.
>>- Can it handle our new library soname scheme?
> It doesn't use libtool,
Okay, new question, then: how widely tested is shared library
generation? There's essentially no standardization for this sort of
thing on *ix systems, which is why libtool exists. Linux is different
from Solaris, which is different from Mac OS X...and that's without even
talking about historical oddities like OSF/1.