> So, how do SCons improve the dependency checking and the > autoconfiguration?
This is a totally different issue. When I'm talking about dependency checking, I'm talking about dependencies between files in the source. So let's say I change a header file, and three .cc files #include it. SCons will rebuild those three cc files automatically because scons has machinery to check what files a C++ file depends on by reading the actual source/header files (and allows you to write your own scanners for your own file types). Like Makefiles, you can manually specify dependencies in your SConscript if you want, but except for custom build steps, it's easier and more accurate to let scons figure all the dependency stuff out for you. The upside to this is that I almost never "make clean". I don't have to. SCons figures what needs rebuilding on its own so I don't get left with incomplete or corrupted builds. Since it's built into scons, it's not as fragile as "make depend" which I've seen break in some very weird ways... > I saw that some SConscript (see src/build/SConscript.main) uses pkg- > config to get rigth package configuration (for compilation, and > linking). > [...] I've gushed a bit about scons. Let's turn to the downsides: I would argue that SCons Achilles' heel would be it's checking of packages and properties of the host system. It's "./configure" equivalent is nowhere near as robust as autoconf, though I personally feel that the ease of use is a valid trade off. Also: speed. All the file scanning for dependencies slows scons down a bit. (Among other things). I think that it's overall a net time win compared to having weird crashes that go away with a full rebuild, but that's a personal opinion. -- Elliot --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
