Re: [9fans] impressive

[Paul Lalonde <plalonde@telus.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Agreed on using up a person's time.  It's depressing that it takes  
one of the more senior people on any software team to properly  
maintain a build.  The other option is to acknowledge it will belong  
to some junior and be broken most of the time.
Builds shouldn't be rocket science, but every project I've worked on,  
even the best, have had a hard time with the mechanics of building  
(all of them have involved some non-trivial number of platforms to  
support: games suck that way).

Paul

On 8-May-06, at 7:20 PM, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote:

> been there.  done that.  the problem is that you end up wasting one  
> person's time
> with build-related issues.  not many people understand make very well.
> and parameterizing make variables -- which i was attempting to  
> allude to ---
> does not help matters.
>
> when i was knee deep in this dreck, i don't remember gnu make  
> having target-local
> variables.  i had to do it through other subterfuge, including  
> VPATH and friends.
>
> - erik
>
>> I just did it over the last two weeks.  Cross compiles 2.5 platfroms
>> (SPUs are strange), with tests and debug targets.  Not too bad if you
>> are willing to let *one* person hold the per-directory included-
>> makefiles in order.  It makes a huge difference (both things, the
>> full dependency tree, and the one person thing).
>> But the code is a little rude - your world winds up with too many
>> parameterized make variables: $($(TARGETOS)$(DIR)BUILDDIR).  And you
>> have to use GNU make's target-local variables to remember that state.
>> It ain't pretty.
>>
>> Is there a better solution?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEYAXppJeHo/Fbu1wRAqfwAJsFJbFW9PfQQoNixqvc7c/ezqLO5QCffjMh
hQLRO4ywOGBX/zlkIM51heo=
=gblJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----