In regard to: Re: Converting *.spec to Makefiles, Jeff Johnson said (at...:
> make has the advantage that its universal, and one can take a Makefile
> and run it.
That's probably true if you're talking about Linux, where every
distribution uses some recent version of GNU Make. It's not as true
when you consider other platforms like Solaris or HP-UX. I don't think
it's necessarily true even for the BSD-derivatives, but I haven't looked
at one in a while.
I also think that there wouldn't be so many alternatives to "make" (cmake,
smake, ant, etc.) if everyone agreed that it was the right solution to
most build problems. autoconf + make works just great for my needs, but
apparently not everyone agrees.
> That's not true with dialects of spec files.
I support any effort you'll undertake to regularize spec files or provide
an alternative, either of which hopefully will result in more
cross-distribution interoperatiblity (I'm not convinced that will actually
happen, but hope springs eternal, as they say).
I have had very few experiences with ant, but I have to say that those
experiences have so far left me hating it. Hopefully whatever comes out
of this doesn't end up with 1000+ line XML files just to build the
>> Maybe something like http://bee.rubyforge.org/ would keep more within
>> the existing YAML-ish syntax, while still allowing for a Real Language ?
Oh good. Another competing build system. ;-)
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
Received on Tue Sep 9 00:49:04 2008