On 11/22/2011 06:47 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Another question is if GNU make is really good enough to warrant this
sort of change.
Good point - gmake has a long history of "hickups" :-)
My question was not meant to imply that GNU make is riddled with bugs.
OK, but is gmake stable enough or is gmake just another moving target
just like many other GNU-programs?
My question is if deciding to move to a tool which optimizes 30+ year
old build concepts is a good idea.
Well, one may call this "30 year old build concept" rock-solid.
Automake is a good build system because it provides a simple syntax by
which the developer can specify his intention.
Agreed, ... as a by-product you also buy-in a large amount of
portability. A by-product many people seem to forget about because they
get "it for free".
Any analysis of the build for large projects will show that
timestamp-based 'make' and recursion lead to huge losses in build
performance and build integrity.
Build dependencies and knowledge of the current build state are not
adequately handled by timestamp-based 'make', even if it is GNU make.
I do not agree with this claim - More precisely, I think, timestamp
based handling is the only viable approach.
That said, I agree insofar as automake has efficiency problems due to
the ballast it carries around to support decade old OSes.
Software builds will only grow larger. It is time for some innovative
thinking.
There are plenty of alternative build-tools, each of them likely once
believed to have the ultimate solution.
Ralf
