On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 08:50 +0200, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 03:38:45PM +0900, José Fonseca wrote: > > 3. Using scons, enhance the build system to support all platforms we are > > interested (i.e., linux and win32, atm), > > http://lwn.net/Articles/188693/ > > 'There were major problems building KDE on non-Linux platforms with > SCons (e.g. on OS X); in general they felt it did not yet have a mature > configuration system.' > > IOW, 'not autotools' is not a panacea for ultimate portability.
You're not adding anything new. You can take 'not autotools' in the sentence above and replace it with whatever you want, and it will still hold true. I wont dispute the theoretical merits of scons vs autotools vs cmake anymore. It's beyond that point. KDE did their homework and reached their conclusions. I've been doing my homework and have reached other conclusions. (This difference will only cause you surprise if you assume KDE == Mesa, or you actually expect there is such a "panacea"). Now the way of proving scons works for Mesa/Gallium or not is making it happen. Everything else now is uncalled speculation. (Plus you're mentioning OS X when my concern is primarily supporting windows, where autotools is useless.) Jose ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
