lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nathan Kurz <n...@verse.com>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Slow migration to Makefiles
Date Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:08:09 GMT
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 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.

I much prefer Make to all alternatives.  Lucy is at base a C project,
and Make is the standard for C.  Certainly other things can work, but
most anything else causes me about the same amount of alarm as a
project that has only a README.doc in Word format.

> Ant is available on nearly every Linux distribution that I've come across in recent years
(installed into /usr/bin/ant or some variant).

I don't recall the details, but I recently tried to install Ant on my
current desktop (Linux Slamd64) and gave up.  I'll do it from source
at some point, but think it's silly that I'm not able to make updates
to the Lucy project page until then.  My initial impressions of Ant
are hence quite negative.

> 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?

Had to look up RM.  No, presumably there will be other Release
Managers so that Marvin can spend his time on areas more demanding of
his particular expertise.

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

No, I presume that some significant percentage of users will be
building this.  The bar should be pretty low, roughly equivalent to
'make config; make all; make install'.

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

Make without reliance on autoconf or other impenetrable junk.  The
general approach Marvin is currently using seems fine, although
removing reliance on Perl seems good.   I want something short that
can be clearly understood in it's entirety.

--nate

ps.  My feelings on Make are reasonably echoed here:
http://blog.jgc.org/2010/11/things-make-got-right-and-how-to-make.html

Mime
View raw message