Sorry for the huge delay. :)
On 04/03/12 02:18, Lionel Orry wrote: > Not sure exactly, but it's quite addictive. I use it in all my > professional projects now (mainly for C/C++). But apart from the small > me, the most widely known waf users around are Samba and Node.js > projects. I.c. > > About the python dep, it's unfortunately needed for all steps > (configure, build, install, whatever else) since the wscript is simply > a python script evaluated in a specific context. So yes, the python > dep might be a no-go for windows (unless we create a waf executable > embedding the python runtime, I think there are scripts to transform a > python script to a .exe). > > Unlike CMake, waf is not a makefile generator, it is a build system by > itself with its own dependency tracking and other useful features. That's a bit annoying, I like make and I like having ms project files on windows (I don't use windows, but I think it's something people appreciate). > > I heard about some efforts towards VS project files and I think it > does work quite correctly though I've not tested: see > http://code.google.com/p/waf/source/browse/waflib/extras/msvs.py > > There also is an eclipse project generator > (http://code.google.com/p/waf/source/browse/waflib/extras/eclipse.py) > and a XCode project generator > (http://code.google.com/p/waf/source/browse/waflib/extras/xcode.py). > >> or Makefiles in general? > > it could theoretically be used to generate a Makefile easily, but I > think it should also be used to generate a configure file too, since > the configure step is important in the build process as designed by > waf. it is close to the autotools in this regard. That being said, > I've not seen a Makefile generator yet (probably because it would need > other external scripts such as a configure). > No need to force on it what it doesn't do. > well for waf the configure step is in python, so if you know of a way > to translate python code to bash code you might be my hero, but I > doubt it is easily feasible. :P > > more seriously, configure scripts use bash and gnu-like tools (sed, > awk, grep, whatever) so I don't consider that configure scripts are > dependency-free. This is a question of point of view. Of course, if > you attempt to build a software project, you often tend to have such > an environment ready so that your "./configure; make; make install" > works (think msys for mingw or cygwin for windows for example, and on > MacOS I heard about packages to get a GNU-ready environment). So as I > stated above, it may not be harder to generate a self-executable file > embedding the python vm and the waf script (would be waf.exe on > windows for example) and ship it in a way or another. Then, absolutely > no dependency (other than compilation tools themselves) is needed, > meaning the waf script could be executed from a cmd.exe. > > I tried to place myself from the windows POV since I know it better > than MacOS or another OS, but you get the point. If you want to build > a software, there's a environment to set up. Installing python or > downloading a waf.exe file is IMHO easier than setting up a GNU-like > environment (like msys/mingw) when you're not used to unixes. > I completely agree with you on that one. Having said all of those, none of the things mentioned are improvements over cmake. I think I'll stick to cmake at the moment, but I'll surely keep an eye for other build systems. Thanks for the tip, Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
