Re: [glean-dev] Makefile problems?

[<ak...@po...>]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 09:49:06AM -0600, Cass Everitt wrote:

| Of course there's nothing that prohibits using MSVC++ project
| features for build management.  It makes it more difficult to keep
| the build mechanism in sync with the source tree when there are
| multiple parallel build mechanisms.

That's true, however, much of the target audience for glean uses
Visual Studio rather than the CygWin tools.  As a consequence I don't
want to *require* that people use CygWin to build glean.

| Is it acceptable to have a "primary" build mechanism that is always
| kept in sync with the development source tree, then sync the other
| build mechanisms with the source tree as necessary (like on release
| versions)?

We'll probably be able to do something like that.  (Although
personally, I *really* don't want to spend more time on infrastructure
issues.  I've been doing almost nothing else since the first release
of glean, and it's long past time to start concentrating on writing
new tests.  I have a backlog of those to write.)

With respect to Adam's problems on BeOS, I'm hoping that all we need
is a new BeOS-specific common.mak file that sets the include path
appropriately for BeOS.  That should solve the problem with
conflicting header filenames.

BTW, a reference to the following page appeared on the linux-kernel
list today:

	http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html

It has some interesting observations on why recursive invocation of
make is a bad thing.

Allen