2007/11/9, daniel g. siegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > hello! > > toc2 instead > ============ > toc2 instead was really nice, i can edit most of it using bash or > makefiles. its fast as hell and does what i want: > * fast: it doesnt open a shell for each executed command, which > allows to be very fast > * lives in the src-dir > * use whatever language you want to enhance it, in my case bash > and makefiles > * maintaineance is very easy > * custom things: > ./configure --maintainer > enables the maintainer mode, which just sets the paths to the > glade or ui-files correctly, in order to allow an execution in > the src-dir. > make dist > just a normal "make dist", but mine prints the md5sum of the > package so that i just have to copy it > > i made my decision based on that, even though i got _many_ lets say nice > or not so nice messages about that. after about 4 months i am still > satisfied with my decision. > > though my biggest concern about toc2 at the moment is translation > handling, which is not supported by itself and therefore has to be done > manually with xgettext and msgmerge. > > so richard hughes and ali sabil told me about waf > (http://code.google.com/p/waf/) as a build system replace for toc2, > which would support translations nicely. has anyone used this tool? > > > > please understand, i dont want to bring up a "autotools is bad and it > should die"-thread, i just want to use my time to code and not to use > that time and effort on a build system. i also know, that i have stabbed > into a beehive, so please be kind lets keep this discussion objective > and realistic. > > > thanks a lot for reading the whole mail till here and not pressing the > "reply flame"-button immidiately ;) > > daniel >
First, I'm glad you hate autotools, I would add more reasons to that list, but I think that we all get the picture already. I don't really get what you really want to discuss here, but I'll give you my opinion anyway. toc2 is just not an option since it depends on GNU Bash and GNU Make, this is a stopper for non Linux environments, waf only depends on python2.3 or greater, which is present by default on most systems (except Windows). I've been trying it and seems pretty promising and easy to extend. However, proposing a replacement for all gnome modules seems a bit scary to me, since we may end up breaking things for a lot of people. I would do something else instead: * Take waf, and implement a first script set for glib or gtk+, make sure you provide exactly the same --with/--enable options with the same presets, and that people get exactly the same results as autotools do, and ask people to test it in different platforms. (I volunteer myself to test it on Solaris and Mac OS X), I can't think on why would anyone stop you to do this since you don't even need to break the current configure.ac/Makefile.am stuff to add it. * Get all that feedback, spot possible problems on waf, fix them, and only then we would be able to do a serious discuss over such a proposal, otherwise, this would be like arguing about angels' sex. -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
