[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Building extension modules
- From: Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@...>
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:22:34 +0200
Hmm.. I'm still not (very) convinced that this is a vital thing, but..
have you considered Hamster for the build-modules-from-scratch thing?
Points: it's 100% Lua, it does make-like things but with full Lua
expressability, does not require make (can do build-all just by
itself). Even has autotools-like feature (try if this compiles..)
What would need to be done: more modularity to the build environment /
compiler config (currently everything's within one .lua file, and only
certain OSes, compilers are supported).
Think about it, -ak
12.12.2004 kello 15:34, Klaus Ripke kirjoitti:
On Saturday 11 December 2004 20:57, Adam D. Moss wrote:
One-size-fits-all config tools tend to do the job only where there's
of a problem in the first place. Only a standard which *is*
I'd choose 'straightforward' over 'standard' any day...
(like a well choosen minimal set of variables) will have a (different)
working implementation for each of the different environments.
The configuration should be easily accessible to a wide range of tools,
thus not contain any language beyond very basic $(MAKE) syntax
(so we don't end up like e.g. postgres' jdbc, which requires
of a special ant version to build).