Guido Scholz schrieb: > Am Thu, 01. Oct 2009 um 15:59:46 -0500 schrieb Gabriel M. Beddingfield: > >>> So what about moving to a more "serious" build system like >>> autoconf/automake ;-) >>> > > >> It's been discussed. It's not trivial to do. >> > > Yes sure, but looking at hydrogens Sconstruct and qt4.py I would not > assess these as trivial. Together they occupy 545 + 517 = 1062 lines > Please take into account that qt4.py was not written by us, it gets distributed with scons. But sure, it is not trivial. Much of its complexity comes from the cross-platform code.. > of code, which infers a remarkable amount of effort. May be some study > of the "autotools" documentation could be less costly. To be honest, > every time this topic comes up here, it triggers a strong personal need > to start "autotools" support for hydrogen, but due to time constrains > I resisted every time. May be I should really append this task to my > personal open source priority queue. > Well, i guess the time effort is one of the important things here. Scons is not optimal for us, but at the moment it's the thing we use because nobody has the time to work into another build system and ensure that it works on Linux / OSX / Windows. Scons works for us on these platform ( in most cases), so does qmake. We had an autoconf based system some time ago, and nobody could really handle it. >> I recently tried to make a custom-script / qmake system and didn't like >> it. >> > > You can use qmake only for "build" targets; forget the rest. About my > very personal view concerning customization, see below. > > >> 'waf' looks promising, but nobody has tried it, yet. CMake also looks >> promising, but I think most of the other devs here would prefer waf >> because it's python. >> > > Sometimes developers are arguing in strange ways. They for example > select tools "because its based on Python, and I like it (and others do > too)" (note: I just avoided the word "hype" here) instead of arguing > "because it leads to good results". Once the decision is taken, > they start re-inventing things the autotools have solved for many > years now. At the end they get something even not doing simple things > properly or e.g. not providing a "dist" target. So they wrap their > packages by hand including administrative files of their repository > software and/or several types of generated files, etc.... I do not > regard this as desirable, economical or good quality. > > Please take my statement with a certain amount of humor. > > > I don't want to comment this a lot, i think the most things were said already our buildsystem discussion.
- Sebastian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf _______________________________________________ Hydrogen-devel mailing list Hydrogen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hydrogen-devel
