Chris Yate <chrisy...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> That's pretty good, actually. Not being able to do native/online >> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad. Yes. Fixes to GUB (possibly >> even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it >> already) are of course welcome: > > > David, > > At a brief look over GUB, the really big question in my mind is why on > earth it seems to want to build *everything*.
It wants to be _able_ to build everything, like autoconf. > A Lilypond build tool for all platforms = a great idea. > A Lilypond build tool for all platforms to which someone's added half a > dozen extra unrelated targets (possibly very large ones such as OpenOffice) > = a terrible idea. You don't need to touch or maintain or use the OpenOffice rules. > If I did anything to "fix" it, it would be to strip it right back to a > tool that does _one_ job well. And I don't know whether that's likely > to be popular thing (although correct me if I'm wrong there)... I don't see the point. It won't build OpenOffice unless you ask it to. > ... because IMHO a build tool that takes 24+ hours to rebuild after > making tweaks to it --and that's on a high spec machine-- is not a > very useful tool. You'll find that none of the 24+ hours are spent in relation to OpenOffice. The OpenOffice configuration affects the download size of GUB, but that's a one-time cost and rather small. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
