lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:
I'd choose 'straightforward' over 'standard' any day...
One-size-fits-all config tools tend to do the job only where there's not much of a problem in the first place. Only a standard which *is* straightforward
(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 installation
of a special ant version to build).