Re: [glob2-devel] the beginning of mac OS X development

[Kai Antweiler]

> Since most of our games are references by their "Alpha" number anyhow,
> I think the numbering scheme may work. However, I highly recommend
> that in official numbers, we don't do say  just 21, instead, make it
> 0.21. All versions our previous versions like 0.8.21 and 0.8.20,  have
> this 8 that doesn't carry any meaning, so take it out. After 1.0, we
> will want to keep a similar scheme, 1.1, then 1.2, then 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,
> 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 .... 1.42 and so on.

The numbering scheme seems to be a matter of believes  ...
I think only debian cares about the alpha keyword.
And only our *.deb files are called alpha.

I think 0.9 would be more consistent than 0.21 .


>> Complete rewrite sounds harsh.  I'd assume you can exchange autotools
>> without having to dig deep into glob2 code.
>
> Yes, and I have. I got scons to compile compile glob 2 code no problem
> in less than 30 minutes. Scons is my builder of choice because its
> extremely flexible. Since Scons files are python scripts, anything
> Scons can't do, you can implement with very minimal effort. And scons
> is also very flexible.

Hey, have a look:
 SCons 0.96.95 (candidate for 0.97) ...
Now, we know the meaning of .8. in our version numbering.


I have googled to compare scons and cmake.
And scons was the definite looser.
- portability issues on non-unix systems.
- slow development 
- KDE really wanted to use this, but gave up.
  Now they use cmake.

http://lwn.net/Articles/188693/
http://swik.net/SCons+cmake

But I didn't spend much time on this research.

Just looked into the scons Changelog:
latest stable release:
RELEASE 0.96.1 - Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:55:50 +0000
http://www.scons.org/CHANGES.txt


Another system would be bjam which is used and written by the boost developers.

-- 
Kai Antweiler