Re: Headless build [was Re: [cdt-dev] RIP Wascana, Build System discuss

[James Blackburn <jamesblackburn@xxxxxxxxx>]

> In my mind any other build system integrations should fall in the
> standard build camp.  The automated internal builder should be simple
> and efficient (at least then we're not trying to sprint before we can
> walk :) ).  Th APIs provided by the standard build system could allow
> ISV additional flexibility to interface to and generate build scripts
> for their-builder-of-choice.

So to clarify this, both Standard and Internal Builder could use the
same build model.   The Standard APIs provide hooks for extenders to
generate their own build scripts -- with Makefiles being a canonical
example. The Internal Builder could be the default mechanism for
building in the IDE for users without a special ISV extended CDT.

The only problem is that we have a pretty good internal builder today
(i.e. it works), so I'm confident about the Internal Builder half. The
unconstrained nature of interfacing to any-arbitrary-build-system
means that it's necessarily hard and likely pie in the sky...

James