[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: serious doubts about waf
From: |
John Mandereau |
Subject: |
Re: serious doubts about waf |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:30:45 +0100 |
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
[PATCH] Re: serious doubts about waf, John Mandereau, 2009/11/11