[rust-dev] RFC: Future of the Build System
gaetan at xeberon.net
Wed Jan 15 05:46:58 PST 2014
To answer to this RFC, I don't see what will be improved if cmake where
used. The makefile macro may be rewritten in CMakeList.txt stuff, but this
will still generate makefiles and thus don't solve the compilation time.
I'm curious about
it is its promise to provide a simple, clean, super-fast Make. It has been
made to replace the old Makefiles and even scons files to build google
And moreover, it follows the UNIX principles: do one thing but do it well.
It's adviced to use a "meta build" sytem like CMake or gyp. Does anyone has
ever used ninja intensively?
And then, a rust meta build program could be written to replace this
metabuilder (i.e. cmake), without having to rewrite the complete ninja
layer (I suppose there will be some ninja module to write to answer some
And see if at the end the ninja build layer can be replaced completely by a
Arg, as I unroll my idea i see that it is exactly the proposal 3 in the
For me, poll will not give the necessary feedback about any system, merely
personal point of view. Maybe it's a good start. A good "deliverable"
should be to generate some small reports with "presentation, pro, cons..."
the most applicable to the compilation of the rust compiler and then vote
I've opened a doodle here <http://doodle.com/3ngkb9ms9gt2qrap>.
2014/1/15 George Makrydakis <irrequietus at gmail.com>
> As an interim solution, any proven build system will do regardless of
> preference. Given the current status quo of Rust's evolving condition, the
> choice should weigh on the side compatible with what the core developers
> use since they build way too often.
> Simplify the build process by reducing number of tools required, going
> towards a single tool if possible. That would make the option of "rusting"
> an alternative, future solution far easier to adopt if that would still be
> an option.
> Should a poll be made instead of these threads?
> Lee Braiden <leebraid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/01/14 23:43, Corey Richardson wrote:
>>> This thread is deviating from its purpose. The idea isn't to hash out
>>> a generic build system for all of Rust, merely for the compiler + stdlib.
>> I think it naturally progressed, because some people wanted to discuss a
>> more generic solution.
>> But fair enough... if the only goal is to build rust, I've very little
>> preference, except to say:
>> Please choose something cross-platform that's as standard as possible,
>> and leads to builds as simple as "make" or "configure && make" or
>> something along those lines.
>> At the outside, CMake's "cmake -G 'Unix Makefiles' etc. is tolerable
>> (for me), in the name of supporting IDE users.
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rust-dev