On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:52:25AM +0300, Martin Bochnig wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Bart Smaalders <bart.smaalders at sun.com> > wrote: > > No. Each consolidation has different build infrastructure and > > procedures; > > Yes, exactly. > Is this a necessity?
No, but it's almost certainly how it would end up happening no matter what. > Wouldnt it be cheaper if all used the same? Not really. Different consolidations have different needs and may work very differently from others. Consider Source Jucr (not a consolidation, yet, but it's very much like a consolidation): database- and spec file- driven, with a web front-end. That's completely different from ON. Making Jucr adhere to ON's build style would defeat Jucr's purpose. But ON has no use for Jucr's database- and spec file-driven scheme. SFW follows the ON model, with various resulting quirks (you can't really split FOSS builds into "commands", "libraries", etcetera -- but SFW forces you to sort FOSS into "commands", "libraries", and so on). SFW could be converted to Jucr, someday. Java probably has a very different build system. Imagine making Java, which is multi-platform, have an ON-style build system (ON only builds on Solaris)! And so on, and on. > That was what I objected to. I am just not 100% sure and I wanted to > bring this question onto the table to see your responses. Only for > consideration. Your objection isn't about architecture though. Nico --
