Hamster (Re: Building extension modules)

[Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@...>]

I don't think it would be hard, I just haven't had motivation to 
re-invent that wheel.  In fact, I would use "ls" or "dir" with 
"timestamp sorting" since that works on Windows, too.  Yes, have looked 
into it. :)

Of the three contributions I've made (LuaX, Lumikki, Hamster) Hamster's 
gotten by far least notion anywhere. I don't know why is this. On the 
other hand, I'm personally very pleased with it (as is) so in order to 
do these (and other) changes I'd welcome also others to work on it.

-ak


13.12.2004 kello 00:57, Adrián Pérez kirjoitti:

> El 12/12/2004, a las 22:22, Asko Kauppi escribió:
>
> > Hmm.. I'm still not (very) convinced that this is a vital thing, 
> > but.. have you considered Hamster for the build-modules-from-scratch 
> > thing?
>
> Maybe off-topic: would it be difficult add dependency-tracking to 
> Hamster? (I haven't checked Hamster code myself). i.e: if I touch 
> "foo.c", only "foo.o" (and other targets that might depend on them) 
> should be re-created. A quasi-portable way of doing that check is 
> using "test":
>
> # Shell script snippet (note: "-nt" == "newer than")
> if test foo.c -nt foo.o
> then
>   gcc -c -o foo.o foo.c
> fi
>
> The MacOS X man page for "test" says that its implementation is 
> POSIX-compliant (the same goes for OpenBSD and Linux).
>
> Maybe newer-than-checks might be done only when the "test" utility is 
> installed, and the current behaviour of Hamster when not?
>
> Currently that little point forces me to use GNU make, because 
> dependency-tracking is vital for  build-check-fix cycles in large 
> projects.
>
> -ap