Re: [Chicken-users] alternate build tools

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Thomas Chust wrote:

> Am 03.10.2005, 15:47 Uhr, schrieb Patrick Brannan 
> <address@hidden>:
>
> > [...]
> > 1. Note that I had to name the exe chicken_d. I could easily rename 
> > it  in a
> > later step, but the point is that CMake doesn't seem to easily support
> > custom file names. Files will be named for the target plus the  
> > appropriate
> > extension.
> >
> > 2. Setting source file properties is a global operation where the 
> > last  set
> > wins. So I haven't found an easy way to combine both static and dynamic
> > linking. I even tried listing the source files twice and setting  
> > properties
> > differently on each listing. The file sets seem to be global 
> > entities  that
> > can accept only one set of properties.
> > [...]
>
>
> However promising CMake looked to me, this doesn't sound like a 
> terribly  well designed core of the system...
Aren't you being rather premature in your pronouncement?  There's 
probably some way to do it, it probably just requires different output 
directories or something.  It takes time to RTFM.  I think you're not 
paying enough attention to a more basic point: Thomas got this thing 
actually working with ease in a weekend.  That's highly encouraging.  If 
debug versions really do have to be called *_d, so what?  If it's 
otherwise an easy, reliable, high quality build system, that's a good 
tradeoff.

Nothing in open source is perfect.  Chicken is *hardly* perfect on 
Windows off-the-shelf.  Does that mean I run around giving up on stuff, 
saying it's a "not terribly well designed core system?"  In the worst 
case, if we want it to be perfect, we submit a patch to the CMake 
authors.  It's open source after all.


Cheers,
Brandon J. Van Every
   (cruise (director (of SeaFunc)
           '(Seattle Functional Programmers)))
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeaFunc