[rust-dev] RFC: Future of the Build System

George Makrydakis irrequietus at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 12:24:20 PST 2014

Then, as we discuss on the replies to this, shouldn't there be a "task force" dealing with the matter for what it concerns Rust? Personal preferences lead to conflicts; reaching a consensus requires a wider set of options discussed inproper setting and community audience.

So far, there is little more presented here than personal preferences. These could be used as a basis for what the definitive solution to this matter should be.

Patrick Walton <pcwalton at mozilla.com> wrote:
>On 1/14/14 1:29 AM, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, George Makrydakis
>> <irrequietus at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Again, note that this rather long thread is about discussing in the
>end what
>>> the official stance should be. There is no valid reason other than
>lack of
>>> manpower and / or language immaturity for having to depend on ruby,
>>> autotools, cmake or whatever else in order to build rust software.
>> There is no reason every language should have its own build system
>> written from scratch (or package manager, for that matter); the goals
>> of each language community are really mostly identical, and the
>> existing duplication leads to software that's worse than it has to be
>> (e.g. inconsistent support for signed packages), a waste of time
>> relearning the same concepts for multiple build systems / package
>> managers, and difficulty for packages that include code written in
>> multiple languages.  Meanwhile, satisfying the dependencies you
>> mentioned is trivial on most systems.
>> However, I'd say there is a stunning lack of existing build systems
>> that actually combine a clean design, flexibility, portability, and
>> performance.  autotools fails badly on design, performance, and
>> (ironically) portability; cmake fails on design (seriously, try to
>> read any cmake script) and flexibility (a lot of stuff is hard coded
>> in C++ and hard to change); most of the alternatives I know about are
>> at least slow, and often poorly maintained, insufficiently general,
>> cetera.  The only build tool I really like is ninja, and it's
>> designed to be used with input generated from a separate tool rather
>> than alone.  So I'd personally like to see a new build system
>This e-mail sums up my feelings to a T, and it's why I'm conflicted 
>about the whole matter.
>Rust-dev mailing list
>Rust-dev at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20140114/4bf1254d/attachment.html>

More information about the Rust-dev mailing list