On 12/17/05, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting... this looks like a solution looking for a problem. There is > no problem the autotools present to GNOME that could not be solved. All the > weaknesses you listed about autotools clearly are not issues for GNOME > developers, or else GNOME won't be where it is today.
Hi, I think we should be pragmatic in this discussion. What issues with autotools make us cry? (and "us" are maintainers, developers and packagers): 1) We need to install 5 or 6 different versions of the autotools in order to bootstrap GNOME from CVS 2) It's very slow. Automake regeneration is slow and configure scripts are. 3) It's difficult to maintain But before considering a new solution we need to be sure that this new solution gives us all the good things autotools gave us in the past: a) They work on all the GNOME platform and OS combinations (Linux, FreeBSD, Hurd, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, AIX x i386, powepc, x64....) b) They are correctly documented c) They allow us to compile CVS versions and make tarballs with just 1 line. So if scons can guarantee us a, b and c, and it fixes 1,2 and 3 I think we should consider them. Salu2 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
