[webkit-dev] New build system for gdk/linux

[Krzysztof Kowalczyk]

Sounds like an interesting idea but Apple folks commented in the bug
that they prefer (and working on) adding gdk support to cmake, so I'm
gonna wait for that.

-- kjk

On 10/16/06, Mike Emmel <mike.emmel at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm intrested but can you do this write the generator in javascript.
>
> We can have a bootstrap GnuMakefile to build the javascript interpeter.
>
> My plan eventually was to use WebKit to build webkit so we would use
> the javascript interpeter and the dom support to build itself.
>
> So once you have a set of GnuMakefile does not matter where they come
> from we would use  javascript/xml for the build.
>
> Initially you could just convert the python to javascript.
>
> So that was my plan the nice thing would be that you would have a
> natural way to add UI wizards etc to the build tool and you get the js
> debugger.
> Ability to do a build from a web browser. Distributed builds using http.
> Lots of good stuff long term.
>
> In the javascript source code JavaScriptGlue there is a main driver
> for js. Maybe on of the javascript developers could explain how to set
> up a command line driver for js.
>
>
> So that was my plan ... So if your willing to use javascript instead
> of python I'm very intrested.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 10/15/06, Krzysztof Kowalczyk <kkowalczyk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This e-mail is to let interested people know about my new build system
> > for gdk/linux and "sell" it so that hopefully it get integrated into
> > official tree.
> >
> > Why new build system?
> >
> > I wasn't happy with what bakefiles generate (mostly the unnecessary
> > recompile with gneerated makefile and the fact that there's only one
> > target and not standard release/debug build). I also plan on trying to
> > build a minimal version of gdk/linux (e.g. without xslt or xpath
> > support) and I felt that bakefiles won't let me experiment easily.
> >
> > Why not fix bakefiles?
> >
> > Bakefiles seem like a good idea but badly implemented and the project
> > is almost dead. It seemed faster to do it my way than learn enough
> > about bakefiles to fix the things that annoy me.
> >
> > Why not cmake?
> >
> > I would love to see cmake-based build for Gdk as well, but I don't know cmake
> > and doing it my way seemed simpler and faster (for me) than learning
> > about cmake.
> >
> > What is it?
> >
> > http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11308
> >
> > It's a simple python script that generates 2 Makefiles: release and
> > debug for gdk/linux, which I call Makefile.gdk.rel and
> > Makefile.gdk.dbg. I think it makes sense to keep both the script and
> > generated makefiles in the repository to make it easier for people to
> > compile gdk/linux version out-of-the-box. Makefiles don't change that
> > often so re-generating them is not a big deal.
> >
> > I kept the nice tricks I've learned from bakefile-based makefiles.
> >
> > I realize it's unusual to have a makefile per target - usually it's
> > done with one makefile with condititional code. One makefile saves dev
> > time if a makefile is being written by hand, but it doesn't matter in
> > case of a makefile generated by a script. Having separate makefiles
> > makes it easier to debug them because more things are spelled out.
> >
> > What are advantages of this Makefile over bakefiles:
> > * builds both debug and release targets, in separate directories; other targets
> > easy to add
> > * no dependency on bakefiles, just python, for generating the makefiles
> > * makefile generated by bakefile causes unnecessary rebuilds (i.e. make after
> > make should do nothing, but it rebuilds some jsc files)
> > * one, non-recursive makefile (for some it might be disadvantage;
> > supposedly recursive makefile should be considered harmful)
> > * meta-description is much shorter (my script uses dir + list of
> > exceptions to specify files for the makefile while bakefiles/cmake
> > requires listing every file explicitely)
> >
> > Disadvantages:
> > * doesn't build shared library but a standalone exe. Can be fixed in the future
> > if there's a need.
> > * doesn't generate wx/win makefiles, but... win is maintained by hand anyway,
> > there is no wx work at all, so the point is moot
> >
> > Adding this build system to the tree doesn't mean that bakefiles have
> > to go - as long as there are people maintaining those system, there's
> > no harm in having more than one. I use this makefile for my builds and
> > I plan on maintaining it in the future.
> >
> > -- kjk
> >
> > As a sidenote, I don't understand why most makefile generators
> > (bakefile and cmake) require listing every file to build. My little
> > script uses directory + list of exceptions (files *not* to compile)
> > which makes for a dramatically more compact description of targets.
> > _______________________________________________
> > webkit-dev mailing list
> > webkit-dev at opendarwin.org
> > http://www.opendarwin.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> >
>