Re: Perhaps stupid request
++ 05/03/02 08:36 +0100 - mh@openoffice.org:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 08:53:51PM +0100, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
> > Hi ...
> >
> > >> build those things) and what doesn't. That's what I want.
> > >The Problem is, that there is currently only the one large build-script
> > >from the OpenOffice.org guys. This is like the code an very large
> > >moloch, on which altars any readability and debugability was sacrified.
> >
> > I in doubt, that some people at Sun unstand the hole buildsystem for
> > OpenOffice.
> >
> he, he. I think there are some people at Sun who understand what there are
> doing ;). Where do you see the one large build script in the OpenOffice.org
> tree. Building is done by makefiles one per directory. pretty conservative.
I must admit, I fully agree with Bernhard. OpenOffice ibuild system is ugly,
ugly, ugly, and once more ugly. Hope I'll explain managers at work, how build
system is important for developer, that it is more important then these silly
internationalization fixes and features, that it will give more attention to
our company throughout the world, etc, etc, <usual trash that we often say to
our managers follows>. In this case I'll have more time to work on build
system.
My idea differs from Bernahrd's a little. I know that it is easy for Suners to
keep it in one big source tree. I'm thinking about making alternative build
system that does everything that current does (solver, etc.), but based on GNU
Make and autotools. It will be politically correct, because build systems won't
interfere with each other, and my will be more flexible.
> ok, traveling with dependencies has it's own tool, build.pl to avoid the
> usual problems with recursive makefiles.
dependancies should be dynamic. dixi.
Nidd,
nidd@openoffice.org.
Reply to: