On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 5:39 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think i have reached a quality in the output of the bazel experiment > where i need to ask what are the next steps. > > I personally have now a baseline i can work with, but that is not > helping everyone else. > > > I personally think that scons can be setup in a similar way. With more > coding on our part and less prefab structures that we find in bazel. > > So I would like to know if everyone is on board for a bazel journey or > should I switch to scons push that. > > > Just as a reminder I pushed for bazel because i think it offers more > structures for AI approach, then SCONs. > > It had nothing to do with the decision itself. > > > Now what is important to me is: > > - separation of build, external libraries, our source, languages > > - repeatable builds > > - the ability to correctly sign on Mac and linux > > - to have a propper build integration of pootle files. > > - to be able to define multiple targets > > OS × CPU × "age" (toolchain / deployment target / dep > ABI) > > > ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ > │ windows x86_64 VS2008 / WinSDK 7.0 / Python 2.7 ◀── > today │ > │ macos arm64 clang / macOS 11 / Python 3.10 ◀── > trunk │ > │ macos x86_64 clang / macOS 10.13 / Python 3.10 > │ > │ linux x86_64 gcc 7 / glibc 2.17 floor / bundled deps ◀── > community │ > │ linux x86_64 gcc 12 / system glibc / system deps ◀── > debian │ > > > └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ > > What is important that we support more a minimal language definition > then a build target. > > This matrix view that bazel works with would allow us to build for > different targets multiple builds tailored to the system. > > Making it easy if a community wants to integrate it to do the work, and > the different distro can cooperate upstream together. > > > Bazel can handle this. I am confident scons is in a similar spot. > > I think with tools like bazel central, (similar to maven central) we get > a external dependency update integration from other volunteers at a low > cost. > > > in the end i would know what do you think? > > Continue with the bazel journey? > > Continue with the scons journey? > > > I would switch accordingly. > > All the bast > > peter > > >
I am impressed by how far you got. These higher-level build systems, with their clearer syntax, can often be converted from one to another easily. I made that gotoScons tool for converting gbuild to SCons, and we can probably convert Bazel to SCons with a similar tool, if necessary. Regards Damjan
