At 05:04 PM 10/11/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:59:56 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> >At 06:10 PM 10/10/2001 -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> >>Any interest in using something less painful than Make for this? I was
> >>thinking of Cons, myself...built in Perl 5 (which we are already requiring
> >>you to have), and much more friendly than Make.
> >
> >Don't forget that our requirement for perl 5 is ultimately temporary. The
> >build system is the one thing that *can't* be in perl, since we'd need a
> >working simple makefile to build the first go-round of perl 6 which then
> >configures and rebuilds itself.
>
>OTOH, "make" isn't very user friendly (the tabs vs. spaces thing is
>notorious), and not all "make" tools work the same on all platforms.
Oh, I have few nice things to say about make other than "It works OK". The
single advantage we have is that there's likely to be a make-ish tool of
some sort available for every platform that we can ship a simple script
for. (Even if for some platforms it's as simple as a shell script or its
platform equivalent)
I'm OK requiring a C compiler and a build tool for a platform. It's a C
compiler and perl 5 that I don't want to require. (Rather nasty
bootstrapping issues there... :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
