[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: serious doubts about waf
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: serious doubts about waf |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:07:43 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 02:38:12PM -0800, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On 2009-11-11, Graham Percival wrote:
> > What's the advantage of automake over the current system? (I'm
> > not even certain what the current system is called!)
>
> I don't have much experience *using* automake, but from what I've
> read:
>
> - A Makefile.am is easier to maintain than an equivalent handcoded
> makefile.
If we were doing this from scratch, I'd definitely push for
makefile.am rather than the stepmake system. However, we already
have an almost-working stepmake system; at the moment I doubt that
the cost of switching to makefile.am is worth the benefits.
> - The generated makefiles will be very portable (not reliant on GNU
> make).
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.
Although I'd like to, I can't claim that cygwin (or manually
installing the GNU tools on windows) is a "small Y".
I'm quite annoyed at the build system situation. 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... waf has the
oddities details here... apparently scons is slow, although I
personally don't care about the speed issue.
Cheers,
- Graham
[PATCH] Re: serious doubts about waf, John Mandereau, 2009/11/11