2008/6/30 Alberto Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 2008/6/30 Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 15:07 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2008/6/30 Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> > >> > An excellent reason to switch to a more modular build system, >> > one that >> > does not require patching the core in order to extend it. >> > >> > Something like... WAF :-) >> > >> > Well, after some time evaluating waf, there's something that I don't >> > quite like about it and that I don't see changing anytime soon. >> > >> > During its development cycle last year trunk has been broken a few >> > times, api has changed and the Tools modules to support gnome features >> > have stopped working. Last time I checked, it lacks a proper test >> > suite to avoid regression on supported tools. >> > >> > There's no difference between well supported features and unstable >> > ones, so people using those extensions don't know what sort of >> > stability they should spect. >> > >> > As we talk, the gnome demo at trunk is broken, a situation that I've >> > seen more times than I would like too: >> > File "/home/aruiz/src/waf-read-only/demos/gnome/wscript", line 6, in >> > <module> >> > import Params, intltool, gnome >> > ImportError: No module named Params >> > >> > Yes, I think that waf has a lot of potential, and eventually it would >> > be the way to go, but without a significant change of direction in the >> > way it is maintained, I don't see GNOME changing to it anytime soon. >> >> Yes, I wholehartedly agree. I periodically discuss these things with >> the maintainer, to try to change his habits, but it's no use :( >> >> Ideally we would need a fork of WAF, with a maintainer that understands >> how software cycles should work. However, the current maintainer is a >> good developer (if not a good maintainer) and would be a shame to lose >> his contributions, on one hand, and no one else has time to maintain a >> fork of WAF, on the other hand. >> > > My gut feeling is that he's not aware that such things have such a big > impact, and maybe we have a hard time to explain him what the concrete > problems actually are, maybe if we list down concrete examples of which > practices would be needed to adopt within the waf development model he will > change his mind. > Perhaps drop him a link to Producing OSS <http://producingoss.com/> as a hint? I've seen it pull wonders.
> > Please, use the wiki page to list every concerns and advantages that you > found with waf and CMake > > >> >> The solution I come up with now is to just freeze the WAF version I use. >> Fortunately, things like vala support can be done on top, rather than >> within, WAF, so it's not hard to stabilize on a WAF version for a very >> long time. >> >> > Plus, CMake is getting more mature and stable and it already supports >> > VisualStudio and XCode project files conversion, lack of proper >> > extensibility being its only downside at the moment. >> >> Lack of extensibility, and use of another arcane custom made programming >> language (if we can call it that) for everything. >> >> No, CMake is not an answer. It is not significantly better than >> autotools to justify a switch to it IMHO. >> >> -- >> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> "The universe is always one step beyond logic" -- Frank Herbert >> >> > > > -- > Un saludo, > Alberto Ruiz > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list >
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
