On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 13:44 +0000, Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > > DMD is insufficient, and is not the hardest makefile to port. Any > serious proposal would need to cover all core repositories - dmd, > druntime, phobos, tools, and dlang.org. We would need to evaluate > any proposals thoroughly, and it will likely involve a trial > period during which both will be maintained in parallel before > any switch-over occurs.
One doesn't port Makefiles, one writes a new build that achieves the same final outcomes. If those 5 are so interconnected why are they in separate repositories? It should be entirely feasible to replace, and evaluate the replacement of, the builds of each of the repositories independently. To demand it is an all or nothing, is to set a bar to high for volunteer labour. Interestingly I bet the Make-based build didn't have to undergo such review. ;-) > If we can draw strong conclusions of considerable benefits for > the replacement, then I think we should be able to reach an > agreement. > > However, be warned: our makefiles are pretty darn tangled. This > is very likely more than a weekend project. That the Makefiles are tangled does not imply a proper build should be. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t:+44 20 7585 2200 voip:sip: russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m:+44 7770 465 077 xmpp:rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype:russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
