You might want to take a closer look at Cons. I think it does a lot of what you probably need, and is certainly quite adaptable (it is, after all, written in Perl). The nicest thing, in my opinion, about Cons, is that the user level script files (roughly equivalent to makefiles) are written directly in Perl (Perl 5, of course). The second nicest thing is that builds always get built correctly. Period.
I wrote an article on this a while back for The Perl Journal. While a little dated, I think it gives you the basic ideas in a fairly painless manner. It's been recently made available on line by the good folks at TPJ at: http://www.ifi.uio.no/in228/scripting/doc/perl/cons/cons-tpj.html which reference has not yet made it into the official Cons website at: http://www.dsmit.com/cons I wrote the original Cons, but I am not an active maintainer. I'll be happy to answer any questions about it--I just can't tell you what the current development plans are. I _can_ tell you that a lot of work has gone into making Cons an extremely robust software construction tool. It was actually very robust out-of-the-gate, and I'm happy to say that the present maintainers have done a really exceptional job of adding functionality while maintaining a high level of quality in each release. Cons is not just a "make-over" of Make. It provides truly new functionality. I invite you to take a look. Bob Sidebotham On Thu, 2001-10-11 at 15:06, Josh Wilmes wrote: > It seems to me that we should look at cons before writing Yet Another > Perl Build System. i haven't used it myself, so I don;'t know if it's > good or not). For reference: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
