Re: build system?

From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-24 17:06:50

From: Jeff Garland

David Abrahams wrote:

JG> Sorry my link wasn't specific enough.  The paper at the other end 
of this
JG> link describes how and why the X Windows development utilizes 
IMAKE.  Skip
JG> straight to section 2.

I saw that paper, but it lacks specific examples of how anything 
moderately
complex is accomplished.

JG> I took a really quick look at CONS.  My 1st impression is that it 
is
JG> immature.  I say that due to the kind of problems I see in the 
Change Log
JG> for the development version.  I also don't see anything indicating
JG> "industrial level" experience described.  I know IMAKE will work 
because of
JG> the projects that have been successful with it.

Would you like to volunteer to put something preliminary together 
that uses
IMAKE? Then we could evaluate it against other options.

JG> Of course, if someone has
JG> already done some groundwork it is certainly worth looking more 
deeply than
JG> my 10 minute evaluation.  In the global scheme of things, some 
people might
JG> be put off if they have to learn a new make system, although it 
would still
JG> be an improvement in the current state of affairs.  When I 
downloaded Boost,
JG> I found myself hacking Makefiles to try out parts I was 
interested in....

Yes. As far as I can tell, even a Make expert has to "learn a new 
make system"
for each new project.

JG> I agree with you about Make in general.  It really doesn't 
scale.  IMAKE
JG> makes things livable.  On the large project I mentioned before, 
we didn't go
JG> to IMAKE because of portability, we did it because we wanted to 
be able to
JG> build the whole thing with a push of a button.  If everyone was 
messing with
JG> their own Makefile strategies it wasn't going to work.  At the 
same time, we
JG> didn't want a bunch of people developing Makefiles for a living.  
IMAKE was
JG> a good compromise because it was easy for developers to add new 
code into
JG> the make system with minimal hassle and it allowed us to generate 
consistent
JG> project-wide make files.

Sounds like it has potential, but I need to see more.

Regards,
Dave