Re: [cdt-dev] Internal builder status

[Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz
<dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, everyone.  I'm replying to Chris since this
> seems to summarize most responses.
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 09:46:09AM -0400, Chris Recoskie wrote:
>>
>> My $0.02 is that probably most people that don't already have an existing
>> build system they are using would prefer to build using the internal
>> builder... if it worked right.  There are a fair number of niggling issues
>> as you describe that really prevent serious adoption.
>>
>> The advantage as well for commercial applications is that one doesn't have
>> to redistribute GNU make with their product, or request that users install
>> it via their own means.
>>
>> The internal builder is WAY faster, when it works right.
>
> I like "WAY faster".  On the other hand, we already are set up to
> redistribute GNU make; and faster's no good if it doesn't work :-(
>
> What I'm seeing here is that for an IDE vendor, where customers are
> going to throw who-knows-what at your tools, the external builder is
> more reliable.  The internal builder is a good idea, but not as
> reliable.  It's a good enough idea that it clearly should be kept, but
> no one is currently keeping it in tip-top condition.
>
> Would everyone agree with that summary?

I certainly agree with that. If we had someone in there fixing these
bugs, which as you mention have been there since 6.0 and I think maybe
longer, then I'd have a different opinion, at least for the cases
Chris mentions where there is no pre-existing build files and where
make is not readily available (which isn't that many platforms any
more).

> If so, I'll probably get these bugs into bugzilla, and then leave them
> be.
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>