On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:13:51AM +0000, Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:22:56AM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote: > > > requiring automake is not something I personally would be excited > > > about... I'd
I'd -1 it right off the bat. No way on automake. > > > like to see how bad a conversion to ordinary sh would turn out.. also, > > > I'd > > > guess that a conversion to the less cool but more widely > > > ported/precompiled/preinstalled P* scripting language would be a rather > > > quick > > > and would not suffer greatly from uncoolness and would pick up additional > > > people able and/or willing to maintain it ;) > > > > Remember that the primary focus of a build system is not ease > > of maintenance or being written in your preferred scripting > > language. > > > > No - the primary focus is being portable. That is why you > > don't see build systems written in Perl, PHP or Python. > > The subject is whether Python can be required for running buildconf, not > for running configure && make. I don't see a problem requiring Python > for buildconf. Exactly. buildconf is used by *developers*, not users. Tarballs won't require Python at all to config and build them. It was also written in Python because it is *just* starting. That script will also product .dsp and .dsw files in the future (the Subversion project generates these files, so I intend to follow that model). For now, it is just starting: it got rid of the recursive make crap. But there is a lot more that it can do. So no... switching to a shell script would not be beneficial, as it would cut off future capabilities. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
