On Nov 1, 2005, at 12:04 PM, carmen wrote:
But its just a shame that work is going into a new build system that is just duplicating existing functionality...the system isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't be made better without being totally discarded.
but thats what youre doing right? is /packages/darwin_app/Makefile not another 'build system'?
this makes 3..one more, and pd can hit the road! vroom vroom!
packages/darwin_app/Makefile is a unified build system, it just calls other existing builds, like externals/build/darwin/makefile, externals/grill/flext, externals/miXed/, etc. etc. Its been around for 2+ years.
And yes, there should be a separate C++ build system.
other places you are suggesting to unify them, yet here you are saying we should have seperate systems? that can't be..since C++ and C have happily coexisted for years in all of the 'make' and make-replacements i can think of ...
what's in packages/darwin_app/Makefile is just basic makefile stuff, so it will be an easy port to Linux and MinGW/Windows.
considering build system #1 (make) and #2 (SCons) already run on various platforms, and #3 like #1 is also using 'make', this should be no problem. but maybe instead of having /packages/platform and /externals/build and /externals/build/platform we should just have a /build, and there should be options for 'just core' 'just externals' 'everything', etc...
Exactly, that's what packages/darwin_app/Makefile is! Check it out! Soon it shall be multi-platform too, thanks to some sponsorship.
.hc ________________________________________________________________________ ____
"Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a more direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in practice, it can change entire economies."
- Amy Smith