Evaluating Bazel for building Firefox

Re:Evaluating Bazel for building Firefox by pjmlp on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @05:33PM (#21392305)

If that was the case, autoconf and autotools would have never been a thing.

The "beauty" of UNIX falls apart when trying to code across all of them.

For example, I cannot even remember if that Makefile would work 100% with a POSIX make.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evaluating Bazel for building Firefox by mzs on Wednesday October 30, 2019 @12:05PM (#21399198)

That Makefile works with BSD and GNU make, no extensions used.

Bazel isn't really nicer than the autotools when you need something complicated, if it even supports your platform. Here's a fun bazel bug report: https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/4350#issuecomment...

I've always managed to avoid autotools unless it was used before with things like LDFLAGS='-lsocket -lns' make ...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evaluating Bazel for building Firefox by pjmlp on Wednesday October 30, 2019 @01:08PM (#21399989)

For me being POSIX compliant goes a little beyond BSD and GNU make.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evaluating Bazel for building Firefox by mzs on Wednesday October 30, 2019 @01:42PM (#21400375)

What does posix compliant* even mean for make? The posix standard doesn't even require support for c++! That's a VERY portable Makefile. It would work on any make from the late seventies (assuming you also had a c++ compiler and system Makefiles that knew how to use it). It only uses a small subset of the rules in the standard.

* https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ma...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evaluating Bazel for building Firefox by pjmlp on Wednesday October 30, 2019 @02:00PM (#21400585)

That is what I mean by POSIX compliant, so I stand corrected. Thanks.

[ Parent | on HN ]