[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons?
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons? |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:41:29 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:25:24PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > Jan proposed SCons [0], and after having read SCons User Manual, I
> > think we could make good use of it. However, SCons has severe speed
> > issues, which Waf [1], one of his younger (and Python-based, just
> > like SCons) competitors, doesn't have -- see benchmarks [2] and [3].
>
> Please have a look at tup too:
>
> http://gittup.org/tup/
While I feel incredibly guilty for speaking against any project
that includes a link to XKCD, I really do not think this is the
best project for us.
- is it portable? (quote: "there is no configure script, so you
just have to hope my C is portable")
- can we distribute it? scons and waf can be run as a standalone
python script; tup evidently requires compiling. That might not
be an issue for you and me, but what about a casual doc
contributor?
- can we extend it? Our docs need a *huge* amount of extra
python scripts and custom rules.
Cheers,
- Graham