Thanks for you reply. I still have some issue regarding "... proper dependency checking" of SCons.
I saw that some SConscript (see src/build/SConscript.main) uses pkg- config to get rigth package configuration (for compilation, and linking). Moreover, current Chromium Source Tree has all the needed libraries inside him (see src/thidr_party/*), and in this way we don't need to check packages installed with the Linux Distribution. So, how do SCons improve the dependency checking and the autoconfiguration? I respect the choiche of SCons, but I come from the usage of autotools/ autoconf/m4/libtool/make. GM On Jan 16, 9:34 pm, "Elliot Glaysher (Chromium)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Usually Open Source projects use CMake Construction Tool Kit. > > Off the top of my head, KDE 4.x is the only project I know of that > uses CMake, (which is different from the old unix make). > > From your first email: > > > Usually, Open Source projects use Make. > > Very few open source projects use unix make exclusively because > Makefiles aren't sufficiently powerful to do much of anything. Without > massive, ugly hacks you can't get things like proper dependency > checking. > > Most open source projects don't use make, but the full GNU > autotools/autoconf/m4/libtool/make toolchain which automatically > builds unix Makefiles from a set of simpler input scripts. Much has > been written about autotools's shortcomings, so I'll just say that > autotools is not a good solution, and for larger projects, it often > isn't adequate. (See KDE's transition first to SCons, and then to > CMake). Things get even worse when you throw windows support into the > mix. > > There is a minority of projects which do use just unix make, but to be > portable, they need to distribute a Makefile for each > architecture/system combination, which is also not really acceptable. > For example, Sleepycat libdb ships with about 50 Makefiles. This is > not a solution that scales! > > make isn't really a good solution which is why there's been an endless > procession of build systems to replace it and why each non-C language > seems to have its own build system trying to replace or supplement > make (OCaml has OMake, Haskell has hmake, perl has a module that spits > out complex Makefiles, python has its own build system for modules and > SCons, ruby has rake (among others), java has ant (among others), and > there's jam (and a bunch of jam derivatives) in the C++ space). > > > Onlywww.scons.orghas a comparison table .. but obviously it is'nt > > fair. > > Really? I found both the feature list on the scons homepage and their > dedicated comparisson page (http://scons.org/wiki/SconsVsOtherBuildTools) to > be pretty fair, > listing both the pros and the cons of each system. > > -- Elliot --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
