LWN.net Logo

add sh/bash to pain list

add sh/bash to pain list

Posted Feb 23, 2007 22:16 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: add sh/bash to pain list by khim
Parent article: The Road to KDE 4: CMake, a New Build System for KDE (KDE.News)

Quite so.

*Any* large system will soon acquire strange code generators and autobuild
rules involving them, and you'll *have* to have some way of telling the
code generator what the build rules are.

It can get insanely elaborate, e.g. gcc's horde of build tools using files
which might in extremis need to be built once with the build compiler,
once with the host compiler, *and* once with the target compiler
(libiberty is like this in Canadian cross builds); GCC's
build-a-makefile-on-the-fly system for building libgcc; or libjava's
`accumulate filenames and write most of the makefile on the fly' system
(all of which have good reasons to exist and are big improvements on what
predated them).

glibc is another good example, with automatic tree walkers finding the
`most system-specific suitable file, if any'...

The question of whether you put that stuff in CMake libraries or in files
included by the Makefile is somewhat academic, really. It still needs to
be there.


(Log in to post comments)

add sh/bash to pain list

Posted Feb 24, 2007 10:25 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Agreed hairy tricky tools are often enough needed. Agreed where they live for the sake of where they live doesn't matter. It's a question worth exploring if you can make viewing and editing the expression of that more sane one way or the other, I think.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds