On Mon, 2013-08-12 at 19:48 +0200, Wyatt wrote: […] > I don't care as long as you're willing to maintain whatever you > choose. But SCons? Granted it's been a few years since I > deigned to look at it, but it's historically caused a lot of > packaging headaches.
And Make hasn't ;-) […] > Do you plan on bundling it or are you expecting people to install > it? Does it properly handle library search yet or is it still > using naive name-only lookup? How about environment variables > like CC and PATH? Has it become resilient against python version > changes completely breaking it? etc. This is where Waf has a benefit. SCons can put the build system with the project leaving only a Python dependency, but Waf is built for this mode of working. > Despite how onerous they are, Autotools and CMake have a better > track record that I've seen. The QtD CMake reminds me of why I gave up on CMake and switched whole heartedly to SCons (and sometimes Waf) for native code builds. Autotools was a magnificent piece of macro hacking over Make, but CMake is better. It's just that compared to SCons, at least for me, CMake is fourth division. SCons is not perfect, it has many problem. The biggest of which is no resource for development. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
