RE: [cdt-dev] Internal builder still experimental?

[Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>]

I guess the main reason is there's no external builder support is that I
didn't hook up a makefile generator. My intention with the MinGW integration
is to support MinGW without requiring MSYS. So, since I have a lot to do for
CDT 4, I skipped the external builder totally.

I guess the main issue I have with using the generated makefiles for
external build systems like cruisecontrol is that they are written everytime
you build (or at least they used to be). You certainly wouldn't want to
check them into source control. That's why the whole build output directory
is marked derived.

My vision is that we would create a makefile exporter that you could use to
generate a makefile for external use. This is similar to how VC6 used to
work. Then you would have total control over it's format and output location
and can be done only when necessary.

Feel free to raise a bug on this, though and we can discuss.

Doug


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gerrit Brehmer
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:25 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Internal builder still experimental?
> 
> Hi Doug,
> is there a reason, why with new mingw toolset the makefile builder isn't
> selectable? Internal builder is quite good and should be the default
> builder, but I need generated makefiles for my cruisecontrol build-system
> and I think that the user should have the two options to build. Or are
> there any problems with mingw and makefile-builder?
> 
> Best regards
> Gerrit Brehmer
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
> To: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:57:01 PM
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Internal builder still experimental?
> 
> 
> The internal builder is no longer experimental. It is the default builder
> for the MinGW integration (so people don't have to distribute MSYS with
> their MinGW tool chains). Please raise a bug on the wording and any
> problems
> found with the internal builder.
> 
> Thanks,
> Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> On
> > Behalf Of Jason Montojo
> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:39 PM
> > To: CDT General developers list.
> > Subject: [cdt-dev] Internal builder still experimental?
> >
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > When I build a managed project in CDT, I get the following messages in
> the
> > console:
> >
> > **** Build of configuration Debug for project zxc ****
> >
> > **** Internal Builder is used for build               ****
> > **** NOTE: Internal Builder is experimental currently ****
> >
> > Should we keep this wording for the 4.0 release?  Saying it's
> experimental
> > could potentially scare away some users.  At the same time, users would
> > have a bit more patience with it since they might not expect it to be
> > release quality.  I'm wondering what everyone else's thoughts are on
> this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jason Montojo
> > IBM CDT Team
> > IBM Toronto Lab
> > 905-413-5228
> > jmontojo@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev