Re: Building extension modules

[David Burgess <dburgess@...>]

1) The library/archive and object suffixes e.g. ldo.o and liblua.a. Could
we have 
O=o
A=a

so I can easily set 

O=obj
A=lib

I do not care what the macros are called so long as I can change
them easily. With nmake on win32  I currently use stuff like 
OBJS=$(OBJS:.o=.obj)
which I find a bit tacky.

2) I would move the directory creation into each individual makefile
e.g. the makefile in lua/src would create lua/lib. This means
that the trickiest conversion which is the makefile (that is in lua/)
can be ignored

Can you explain the logic of distributing the makefiles with the
"co" and "klean" targets included? I do not see their relevance
to building Lua from the distribution. My logic being that if they
were not included the distro makefiles would be simpler.

The other experience that I can add is as follows:

All the Lua makefiles convert to the different makes that I use and have used
without too much difficulty. However, I need to often change the file
suffixes and the "include" syntax changes across makes. 
I was wondering, given that the Lua makefiles are so small, whether it
would be simpler to have A (one) (1) makefile in the Lua root directory
that builds src, lib, lua and luac. This would not be a big makefile and
would have the advantage of there being only one file to edit and not
having change the "include" syntax in each of the child makefiles. 

db


On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:53:59 -0200, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo  wrote:
> I'd like to hear suggestions on how to make* them even simpler
> (and, in true Lua tradition, at the same time more powerful).