incubator-zeta-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gaetano Giunta <giunta.gaet...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [zeta-dev] PHP based build system : Phing VS Pake
Date Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:49:30 GMT
Jerome Renard wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> The debate we got earlier [1] on this list after I posted a very early
> version of the
> Ant based build script showed that we were possibly going in the wrong
> direction.
>
> After chatting on IRC we realized that (some statements might look
> obvious to you):
>
> 1. the actual Makefile is hard to read
> 2. the actual Makefile is not cross-platform at all
> 3. the actual Makefile is a PITA to maintain
> 4. the Ant build file is not as cross-platform as I hoped it was (my bad)
> 5. the Ant build file will most likely be a PITA to maintain as well
>
> So we thought it could be a good idea to have a look at PHP based build systems.
>
> Our requirements are:
> - the build system must be cross platform as much as possible
> - the build system must be simple to use and simple (our part) to maintain.
> - the build system must be easy to use
>
> I found Phing and Pake and here is what I think about them (please not that
> I had a look at those tools during lunch as it was the best I could
> do. If I overlooked
> anything feel free to tell me):
>
> Phing:
> - looks big (bigger than the default Ant)
> - provides a lot of features
> - is XML based
> - is supposed to be Ant for PHP but does not seem to be 100%
> compatible with Ant files
> - is very well documented
>
> Pake:
> - is smaller than Phing (not hard)
> - is not as clearly documented as Phing, some parts of the
> documentation are still missing
> - is not XML based (Derick will appreciate that :P)
> - claims to be Make for PHP and it seems it is
>
> My preference would go to Pake as it looks much simpler for our needs
> and we could end up
> with a very-easy-to-maitain build script. What I appreciate with Pake
> is that you can get total
> control and freedom on what you do. It already provides all the
> features [2] we need in order to
> build the docs and the website, and if one of the library is not what
> we need we could use AZC
> easily.
>
> I will try to give Pake a try as soon as possible. But if one of you
> already has experience with
> Phing or Pake I would be happy to get your feedback about these tools :)
>
As I proposed pake in the 1szt place, no need to assert any more that I like it "enough".
Missing docs are a pain,k as well as no forums / mailing list / bug tracker.
But the owner of the github project seems to be a nice guy (ie. responsive)

Another similar tool I found a while ago was "phake", but it looks to be even greener than
pake. Maybe too much.

Phing: all I can say is that I never used it but all the people I do know that did now have
a very bad opinion of it...

bye
Gaetano

> <this is the auto flagellation part>
> I plead guilty for imposing Ant, the reason is that I have been using
> it for a couple
> of years already and I thought it would solve problems we got in the
> Makefile. But I
> was wrong.
> <this was the auto flagellation part>
>
> 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-zeta-dev/201104.mbox/%3CBANLkTikGTSkKg1Yc+ieRxt66a7Ka_853nA@mail.gmail.com%3E
> 2. https://github.com/indeyets/pake/tree/master/lib/pake
>


Mime
View raw message