Makefiles [was: building Mac 2.3b VM]

Ranjan Bagchi ranjan.bagchi at
Wed Dec 9 18:05:29 UTC 1998

Hi -- more of a random thought,

It'd be pretty a pretty nifty Squeak package which could run the 
compilation tools directly (i.e. call gcc like an IDE) to recompile itself. 
 Keeping track of file modification times and other dependencies.


On Wednesday, December 09, 1998 9:48 AM, Blanchard, Tod 
[SMTP:tod.blanchard at] wrote:
> No, but projects are closed, non-portable, and have short life 
> I run into the "wrong version" issue all the time and if I have to move 
> code elsewhere I still have to write a makefile.  Project manager should
> write makefiles.
> 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.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Ken Dickey [SMTP:kend at]
> > Sent:	Tuesday, December 08, 1998 4:37 PM
> > To:	squeak at
> > Subject:	RE: Makefiles [was: building Mac 2.3b VM]
> >
> > >And yet Makefiles are what MacOS X and WebObjects people use to manage
> > >development.
> >
> > I didn't say I don't use makefiles.  But having built large projects
> > (e.g. Sun's JDK) using both makefiles and Metrowerks projects, I find 
> > latter much easier to use.  They both have problems, but assuming
> > makefiles are easy and projects are hard is a little much.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -KenD

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list