Re: serious doubts about waf

[John Mandereau]

Le mercredi 11 novembre 2009 à 23:07 +0000, Graham Percival a écrit :
> Given that most of our users are on windows, I defined
> "portability" as "it will run on operating system X with Y extra
> software installed", where X should be large and Y should be
> small.

Then SCons and Waf are reasonable choices in this respect.


> In all
> seriousness, I think that make (possibly including automake) is
> the best build system.  All the "next generation" build systems
> seem to shoot their feet off in various ways... cmake has the
> strictly-defined "open source" (i.e. "closed documentation") as
> well as its own invented scripting language...

Build systems tend to be complicated that specialized scripting
languages are no longer suitable, and I have neither the skills nor the
motivation to extend GNU Make or consorts (cmake) by hacking its source
code.


>  waf has the
> oddities details here...

Waf is not mature, it's kind of experimental, but come on, we already
almost managed to live with another piece of software that has a moving
target in place of a stable API, and you even convinced us to choose it
to output the website in HTML :-)


>  apparently scons is slow, although I
> personally don't care about the speed issue.

I don't care either at the moment, but if we went for Scons we would
probably all sing the same rant like a choir, like "Cygwin is slow!" a
few years ago :-P
(sorry for the wrong analogy between a build system and end-user
software, but I really couldn't help)

Best,
John

signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée