Makefiles [was: building Mac 2.3b VM]

Ken Dickey kend at
Thu Dec 10 02:19:03 UTC 1998

>No, but projects are closed, non-portable, and have short life expectancies.
>I run into the "wrong version" issue all the time and if I have to move the
>code elsewhere I still have to write a makefile.  Project manager should
>write makefiles.

Metrowerks is releasing its development environment redone in Java in 

This should be helpful w.r.t. portability.

I still don't see how makefiles help with library versioning problems 
(e.g. libc, egcs, etc., etc.).

>Also, large projects should be developed as a system of sub projects each
>with its own makefile.  I actually have two types of makefiles - module
>makefiles and project makefiles (which just call module makefiles).  I'm
>gonna stay pro-makefile and anti-closed file format.

Yes, I also deal with rats nests of hundreds of nested makefiles 
maintained by multiple people over a number of years.

Again, there are problems with most approaches--it depends on project 
scale, goals, and usability.  IMHO, projects are easier to use.  On the 
other hand, used judiciously gnumake and rpm are very reasonable.  Let's 
agree to disagree.  


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list