As an interim solution, any proven build system will do regardless of preference. Given the current status quo of Rust's evolving condition, the choice should weigh on the side compatible with what the core developers use since they build way too often.
Simplify the build process by reducing number of tools required, going towards a single tool if possible. That would make the option of "rusting" an alternative, future solution far easier to adopt if that would still be an option. Should a poll be made instead of these threads? Lee Braiden <[email protected]> wrote: >On 14/01/14 23:43, Corey Richardson wrote: >> This thread is deviating from its purpose. The idea isn't to hash out > >> a generic build system for all of Rust, merely for the compiler + >stdlib. > >I think it naturally progressed, because some people wanted to discuss >a >more generic solution. > >But fair enough... if the only goal is to build rust, I've very little >preference, except to say: > >Please choose something cross-platform that's as standard as possible, >and leads to builds as simple as "make" or "configure && make" or >something along those lines. > >At the outside, CMake's "cmake -G 'Unix Makefiles' etc. is tolerable >(for me), in the name of supporting IDE users. > > >-- >Lee
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
