On 2011-12-07 15:15, Gour wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:38:04 +0100
Jacob Carlborg<d...@me.com> wrote:
What I see as the advantage of a new build system is that it can be
developed specifically for D which could make the tool very easy to
use. Example:
$ tool build main.d
That's all that should be needed to build an executable. You could
have the same in a build script:
// buildfile
main.d
$ tool build
For a library it should be similar:
$ tool build foo
Where "foo" is a directory. I don't know if that's possible to have
in a build tool not specifically developed for D.
Hmm...isn0t it too simplistic?
For our project, we have need to e.g. buil lib from the included sources
of 3rd party C library, then use SWIG to provide D bindings for it, then
build D libs using those bindings and only then buil D executable.
That's why we're targetting CMake/CPack and want to help Jens to push D
support upstream(the only problem is we're a bit short on time atm.)
Sincerely,
Gour
Of course it should be possible to build more complex projects and have
more options in the build script. But for simple projects nothing more
should be needed. The above would be the minimum to actually build
something.
For an executable that doesn't have any dependencies (except for the
standard library) noting more should be needed.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
