From: Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2005-04-07T19:37:37+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Rant 0.3.2

Lionel Thiry, April 7:

> Nikolai Weibull a �crit :

> > Lionel Thiry, April 7:

> > > SCons main design doc claims its cornerstone is the management of
> > > explicit file dependency DAG.

> > Where are you reading this?

> http://www.scons.org/doc/PDF/scons-design.pdf
> This is the design doc of SCons 0.96, the latest version. Look in chapter 
> 3, see architecture.

Yes, that's what I've read as well.

> > What it does differently from make(1) is that it creates a complete
> > DAG of all dependencies, i.e., it doesn't rely on recursive
> > invocations (like make(1) does).  That's the only difference I know
> > of,

> Mmm, I fell it hard to tell where is the difference between your
> statement and mine.

Eh, you were saying that there was a difference between SCons and
make(1) when there really is none.  The only difference is the one I
stated above and that difference is only true because most people
misuse make(1) by invoking it recursively.  Make(1) can be used without
recursive invocations and then works in the same manner as SCons.

So, as I stated about 10-20 mails back in this thread, there is no
diffence between what SCons does and what make(1) does,
        nikolai

P.S.
You can always check out
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html
for a discussion about how to not use make(1).  (Some would still argue
that this doesn't matter much and that recursive invocations are
fine...they are wrong.)
D.S.

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}