On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:08:08AM +1200, David Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Michael Forney wrote:
> > … Anyway, I'm a little suprised about the distaste for ninja since
> > it's features are pretty much the same as POSIX make (variable
> > assignments and rule defini
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:12:21PM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> I didn't suggest that implication. It seems that ninja offers some
> advantages for a price, that I cannot estimate yet.
It's c++ hence depends on a c++ toolchain... there you have the
"price" you are looking for...
(No wonder there
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Michael Forney wrote:
> … Anyway, I'm a little suprised about the distaste for ninja since
> it's features are pretty much the same as POSIX make (variable
> assignments and rule definitions).
I suppose the last half of that sentence outlines the distaste
On 26 July 2017 at 18:32, Michael Forney wrote:
> On 7/26/17, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, what is the point of a build system like ninja, if
>> the codebase requires to be complex?
>
[..]
> In oasis I'm using ninja like you're use stali.mk in stali. The
> advantage is that dependen
On 7/26/17, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 26 July 2017 at 09:05, Silvan Jegen wrote:
>> That's what I suspected. Not sure it's desirable to ever work on a
>> codebase big enough to require a build system which uses ninja under
>> the hood. If I find myself in such a position I will turn to samurai
>
Hi,
Since I'm currently rebuilding a desktop gnu/linux distro from _my_ scratch:
- the wayland stack did switch to meson(python3)/ninja(c++). meson is
handling "classic" cases, but if you go in corner cases, it breaks
easily, for instance, if you want static libs/bins
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 26 July 2017 at 09:05, Silvan Jegen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Michael Forney wrote:
>>> On 7/25/17, Silvan Jegen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Michael Forney
> Even if you don't care for ninja, it d
On 26 July 2017 at 09:05, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Michael Forney wrote:
>> On 7/25/17, Silvan Jegen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Michael Forney
Even if you don't care for ninja, it does seem to be gaining
popularity, and I've noticed sever
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Michael Forney wrote:
> On 7/25/17, Silvan Jegen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Michael Forney
>>> Even if you don't care for ninja, it does seem to be gaining
>>> popularity, and I've noticed several projects start switching from
>>> autotools to mes
On 7/25/17, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Michael Forney
> wrote:
>> Over the past couple weeks, I implemented a ninja-compatible build
>> tool in C. It is much simpler and smaller than ninja and seems to
>> perform at least as well.
>>
>> https://github.com/michae
Hi
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Michael Forney wrote:
> Over the past couple weeks, I implemented a ninja-compatible build
> tool in C. It is much simpler and smaller than ninja and seems to
> perform at least as well.
>
> https://github.com/michaelforney/samurai
>
> It has all the features I
just more technical debt
thanks for your disservice.
Hi all,
Over the past couple weeks, I implemented a ninja-compatible build
tool in C. It is much simpler and smaller than ninja and seems to
perform at least as well.
https://github.com/michaelforney/samurai
It has all the features I care about, apart from gcc -MD header
dependency parsing which
13 matches
Mail list logo
