On 08/11/2017 12:26 PM, Nash, George wrote:
> In my experience all build systems have tricky little problems. It is
> typically better to stick with the build system that you have chosen unless
> there is a really compelling reason to switch. The switching cost is high and
> you typically run into a new set of issues in the build system you change to.
>
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregg Reynolds
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 4:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [dev] build sys
>
> just discovered bazel https://bazel.build
>
> looks to beat scons by orders of magnitudinosity. maybe switching makes more
> sense than trying to fix the current bld arrangements?
Some of the build tools have support tooling that helps detect and build
up the actual control files, whatever you end up calling them. But
still a conversion is going to be a pain - there are 20k lines of scons
scripts now:
$ findallscons | xargs wc
59 202 2092 arduino.scons
90 245 3283 bridging/common/SConscript
...
100 237 3392 service/simulator/SConscript
107 356 4303 service/third_party_libs.scons
20200 56743 732347 total
no matter how you slice it, that's going to be a hefty conversion.
someone would have to make a _very_ compelling case.
I'm also agreeing with George: all of these systems are "smart" and work
great if what you're doing fits cleanly onto the model, and a pain when
it doesn't (a good chunk of the scons cruft is working around things;
also a lot of the workarounds aren't needed and several of us are trying
to hack them out, no arguing that the maintenance is being a pain and
there's no person that's paid specifically to work on the build system).
_______________________________________________
iotivity-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
