On 14.06.2017 11:20, Marc Espie wrote: > make isn't really an appropriate build tool for larger machines with > lots of cpu. > > best-of-the-breed has been ninja for years. I wish it were in more common > use, as some big projects that support it (chrome) tend to not always use > it, so they are missing dependencies as well. > > Anyway, ninja, is really good at representing complex dependency graphs > over a whole project, totally avoiding any kind of "recursive make" > behavior while eschewing extra complexity from some of its competitors. > > Ninja *is* a next gen build system. Started from scratch, avoided all the > mistakes that are going to plague make until the end of time. > > I don't know where pkgsrc stands these days, but changing generators to > ninja where possible (cmake -g Ninja for instance) yields huge benefits > in terms of parallelism for large software. > > Sometimes you will run into dependency chains that need fixing and > upstreaming... the more projects looking into this the better. > I missed when ninja learnt basic operations like put processes into sleep with ctrl-z and wake up them afterwards. If there will be an option to switch cmake projects to ninja, I will keep using bmake(1). It does the job very well and there is no need to retire it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature