Am Fri, 4 Dec 2009 18:41:08 +0100 schrieb Thorsten Behrens <t...@openoffice.org>:
> - regarding parallelization, that's surely fixable with much less > effort in build.pl, no? Currently we are starting one dmake-process per directory and that dmake process does paralellization the directory. Implementing a recursive jobserver that communicates between dmake and build.pl would not only be ugly, it would also be a major effort. > - what kind of dependency tracking is missing in the current system? Those that bite you on compatible builds. The only way to work around those reliably is to throw away and rebuild all dependent modules. Also we currently have many, many intermodule dependencies that are implicit and thus very fragile. Just ask Mathias -- he had to deal with a lot of those when working on the split build stuff. > - the question of correct dependencies is probably rather > orthogonal to the question of which build system to use. much of > the problems here are in modules like scp2, helpcontent, > writerfilter etc. where tons of stuff is built via ad-hoc rules > that simply don't get dependencies right. Having those handled in > a declarative way would convince me a bit better, that a change > in the build system actually addresses these issues - > (see also Kay's > http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/and_what_about_make) We are using a declarative language -- also Kay knows what we are doing and has contributed valuable input. I guess he would tell me, if I tried something obviously wrong. ;-) And yes, the build system to use is only "the color of the bikeshed", but this is a chance to get rid of quite a bit of self-maintained dependencies. As said elsewhere, the effort never aimed to simple replace build.pl/dmake with GNU make for its own sake. > More generally, I'd guess the whole make system question, once > posed, has a much (if not more) potential for religious wars than > the dscm question. :) Yes, and it shows in the comments of the blog. > In line with that, why not using autotools? It's ugly, it has many > drawbacks, but it's _the_ standard for FLOSS. Plus, it has excellent > cross-build capabilities, something I consider increasingly > important. Or something like cmake, which could give you project > files for common IDEs (see > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/ooo-build/2009-August/000181.html > for some initial attempts)? see my other replies here and on the blog. As a sidenote: project files for common IDEs only give you more trouble, if they are one way (and they currently all are): They are a just minor simplification for newcomers for a simple build without changing anything. But I leave it to you to explain to release engineers, why it is their job to translate the changes made by a new dev in his IDE-project back to the cmake source. They will rightfully refuse that. Thus the newcomer will have to fiddle with the makefiles again manually, winning nothing in the end (other than additional confusion and probably some needless communication on mailing lists). Best Regards, Bjoern Michaelsen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
