From: Robert R. <ro...@rf...> - 2010-01-02 08:26:52
|
Daniel Herring wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Robert Roessler wrote: >> I am actually a bit concerned about the whole dependencies >> generation/maintenance thing - I found a tool (makedepend) that works on >> both Windows and Unix-based systems (even though they have gcc -MM), >> but... what happens next? Do we just tell them to add it to the list of >> build environment requirements? As it looks like an MIT/BSD license, do >> we include it in source form and build it as a prereq? > > I would recommend against makedepend. A quick search for supporting > evidence found this wonderful wikipedia entry. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makedepend > > Automake has a much better approach. > http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Dependency-Tracking.html > > A couple years ago, I played with converting SBCL's build to use > autotools; but I tried to redo everything, did a few things fundamentally > wrong, didn't ask for help, and more interesting things caught my fancy... > A simpler effort might be able to spit out rules for gcc -MM or depcomp as > appropriate. Thanks for looking at this, Daniel, but I suspect you didn't see the thread that precipitated this effort... the whole point is to NOT be using gcc or [generally speaking] anything from that ecosystem - e.g., autotools. Put more positively (what we *are* doing as opposed to what we are *not* doing), this is primarily about using the MS compilers for both 32 and 64 -bit builds, which has a cascading effect on both the source and the "secondary" tools (like assembly, inline and not, as well as dependency generation and maintenance). Between the specific goals, and noticing that SBCL is not about GPL licensing, the "makedepend" tool appears to be quite a reasonable fit both philosophically and in practice (i.e., it can be built and run everywhere). ;) Robert Roessler |