Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 20:45:39 -0600
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 7:53 PM James via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I'm aware of problems with "Yet another X" or "There were 10 solutions, so we created our own. Now there are 11 solutions". If I wasn't aware of that, I would go implement a new one. That's why I'm here. Only way to avoid this is, "standard says it". This is not %100 solution to that, but at least it wouldn't be yet another solution nobody uses since the industry standard is CMake. People pretty much hate CMake, at least parts of it. But they can't do anything about it because it's the industry standard. Some does, but they don't get to benefit using a solution which is industry standard
I agree with you that having a build specification format is
beneficial. And I also agree that it could be subject to the
yet-another-standard syndrome. And I also agree that such a format is
never going to replace all aspect of build systems.
What I would expect to work out, and what we should be able to do, is
to specify the common cases. And increment towards more cases as
experience develops. The way I would see such a format working is that
build systems would import it, like they currently import PC files,
and hopefully import CPS files, to define not just prebuilt libraries,
but also buildable targets. And build systems can add their own custom
build aspect as they wish on top of that.
>
> I'm aware of problems with "Yet another X" or "There were 10 solutions, so we created our own. Now there are 11 solutions". If I wasn't aware of that, I would go implement a new one. That's why I'm here. Only way to avoid this is, "standard says it". This is not %100 solution to that, but at least it wouldn't be yet another solution nobody uses since the industry standard is CMake. People pretty much hate CMake, at least parts of it. But they can't do anything about it because it's the industry standard. Some does, but they don't get to benefit using a solution which is industry standard
I agree with you that having a build specification format is
beneficial. And I also agree that it could be subject to the
yet-another-standard syndrome. And I also agree that such a format is
never going to replace all aspect of build systems.
What I would expect to work out, and what we should be able to do, is
to specify the common cases. And increment towards more cases as
experience develops. The way I would see such a format working is that
build systems would import it, like they currently import PC files,
and hopefully import CPS files, to define not just prebuilt libraries,
but also buildable targets. And build systems can add their own custom
build aspect as they wish on top of that.
-- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
Received on 2024-11-27 02:45:56