lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

> 1) The library/archive and object suffixes e.g. ldo.o and liblua.a. Could
> we have 
> O=o
> A=a

This has been asked before. It can be done, of course, but the Makefiles
are for Unix, as said in INSTALL.

> 2) I would move the directory creation into each individual makefile
> e.g. the makefile in lua/src would create lua/lib. This means
> that the trickiest conversion which is the makefile (that is in lua/)
> can be ignored

Sorry, you've lost me here. What do you mean?
> Can you explain the logic of distributing the makefiles with the
> "co" and "klean" targets included?

Laziness. You're right, this requires cleaning.

> I was wondering, given that the Lua makefiles are so small, whether it
> would be simpler to have A (one) (1) makefile in the Lua root directory
> that builds src, lib, lua and luac. This would not be a big makefile and
> would have the advantage of there being only one file to edit and not
> having change the "include" syntax in each of the child makefiles. 

The only problem I see with this is that we'd have to specify the location
of objects files. I recall that in the past this was a problem for
different compilers. Some insisted on saving objects to the current
directory; others wanted to save them where the source files lived.

I like the idea of each directory having its own Makefile because it helps
you when you're doing local changes. (Yes, 5.1 Makefiles will contain full
dependencies.) However, there is the case for a single Makefile [1] and if
single, *portable* Makefile makes the whole thing simpler, I'm all for it.

Of course, a simple solution is to have all source files in a single
directory, that is, not have lib, lua and luac subdirectories in src.
Is that what you're saying above?

Perhaps you or someone else can send me a sample Makefile that would
replace all those Makefiles. We could then see what is involved.


[1]  Recursive Make Considered Harmful