lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Karman <pe...@peknet.com>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Slow migration to Makefiles
Date Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:01:11 GMT
Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on 11/16/2010 02:31 PM:
> Hmm, my 2 cents is that it's infinitely simpler to understand a
> build.xml file (or better yet a Maven pom.xml :) -- just my opinion
> people no tomatoes!) than it is to understand makefiles, or better
> yet, programs that generate makefiles on the fly, or that generate
> other build scripts on the fly etc etc.
> 
> Ant is available on nearly every Linux distribution that I've come
> across in recent years (installed into /usr/bin/ant or some variant).
> 

A quick check of the 2 CentOS dists I have available (5.3 and 5.4)
reveals that neither have ant installed. Both have make. Ant is, of
course, available as an installable package. But it's not part of the
standard build tools, afaik.

> 
> That said, these are just my preferences (as are Marvin's for
> Make/programs that generate makes and so forth :) ). What do others
> think? The key question to ask yourselves is:
> 
> 1. will Marvin be the *only* RM that this project ever sees? 

No. I have done KS releases; I expect to do Lucy too.

2. will
> Marvin be the *only* person building this project, ever? 

No.

3. of the
> 2-3 existing Lucy developers, what are the preferences? I know
> Marvin's: what about Peter/Nate? 

Make is my pref. For the reasons Marvin states.

I don't expect our Makefiles to be complicated. I expect them to
delegate to more sophisticated, generated scripts, as Marvin suggests.


-- 
Peter Karman  .  http://peknet.com/  .  peter@peknet.com

Mime
View raw message