> On 2/28/07, al davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The only place I see for broadcast bounties I see is to get > > something new. I have been considering offering a bounty > > for someone to make a good quality replacement for > > autotools. It's even on GNU's list of needs, but they want > > to do in in guile which is a mistake. It must be written > > entirely in "make" and /bin/sh. > On Wednesday 28 February 2007 17:45, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: > As I understand things, the Guile solution is aiming to not > only replace autotools, but also make itself. Since Guile is > a proper, Turing-complete language, this makes sense.
The problem (please correct me if I am wrong) is that it creates a dependency on guile. Someone needs guile to work on a program that doesn't use guile anywhere else. Lots of languages are "Turing-complete". I like "make" because it is a logic language ... a list of rules, and what to do when the rule applies. > But, there *already* is such a system in existance, called > SCons. I have some experience with SCons, and I really, > really like it. I looked at the web page .. It looks like the files are python scripts. ok .. now we have a dependency on python. Someone needs python to work on a program that doesn't use python anywhere else. > SCons apparently has scalability problems, which is why KDE > is switching/has switched to CMake, which looks interesting > too, but still suffers from relying on Make. and it has some of the same bizarre syntax that autotools/m4 have. > The problem with Make comes from *nesting* sub-projects > within a larger context. If they are truly sub-projects I want to be able to work on them separately. completely separately. You can do this with recursive makefiles. With autotools, this is broken. It uses recursive makefiles, but flat configuration. A combination that gives you the disadvantages of both with none of the advantages of either. > As long as you use a flat Makefile > (which references sub-projects explicitly via relative > pathnames), then that singular makefile will have everything > it needs to do exactly what's needed. Otherwise, you end up > wasting a lot of effort in building and maintaining a > package. The effort I put into the makefiles non-autotools version of gnucap has been near zero, even when I make big changes. > I'm curious to learn if CMake builds a single makefile or > not. I don't want a single makefile. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user