Re: premake (was Re: autoconf / automake)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: premake (was Re: autoconf / automake)
- From: Miles Bader <miles@...>
- Date: 2011年10月28日 13:37:42 +0900
Josh Simmons <simmons.44@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not really a fan of having a build system build config files for
> another build system. Seems somewhat redundant.
There are some good reasons for it, though.
It avoids a depency on a possibly rare build-system in favor of a
dependency on much-more-likely-to-be-installed tools (make etc) for
"end users" (those who download your package and just want to
compile/install it).
Moreover, this additional "generation" step adds flexibility -- you
can generate different "config files" for different target systems.
E.g. for a linux/unix/posix distribution, you generate makefiles and
shell scripts; for windows you generate vcproj files, etc. This extra
step could make things much simpler.
Given there are a bazillion and a half build-systems around
(seriously: is there anybody out there who _hasn't_ written a build
system at some point...? I've never even heard of Waf), these are
real issues.
> I'm a fan of Waf, despite it using Python instead of the premier Lua.
> It's easy to distribute with your project too, so you have a
> self-contained build script that relies only on python.
Even just Python's a pretty huge/complicated dependency...
Really, there's no way around it, you need to depend on _something_,
the question is what it is, and how painful it is for your intended users.
-miles
--
80% of success is just showing up. --Woody Allen