Let's look at another build system

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

--------
In message <CAJ6ZYQyJgEq=DOShx4=MMF6W32DJPu05U-cTx6Tx_iKsBwb8Yg at mail.gmail.com>
, Guillaume Quintard writes:

>> If all you use make(1) for is running processes, it's as good as anything
>> (except maybe jam(1)).  The hard part about make(1) is getting _all_
>> your dependencies recorded _correctly_ in the makefile.
>
>That's the biggest footgun of make because it doesn't know about recipes
>producing multiple files [...]

Dont get me started:i  I know perfectly well what the problems are,
which is why I only said I was "tempted" :-)

>I don't know jam [...]

Jam(1) was make(1) done right.  Unfortunately there were absolutely
no way to migrate, short of starting from scratch, not even for
highly stylized Makefiles like the FreeBSD tree, so it never caught
on and is sadly no longer of relevance.

But as I said: By all means lets look at this.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.