On Thursday 23 October 2008, Garrett Cooper wrote: > Waf is interesting and with the right amount of Python decorators and > Python nose testcase implementation, the build dependency information > can become comparable to make. > > However, here are my questions and points of concern: > 1. It's not mature. > 2. It's duplicating a lot of similar logic from Python nose > unnecessarily, in a not really intuitive way. > 3. It doesn't have a comparable set of logic to GNU make's implicit > rules, which greatly reduce the make logic -- this is a double-edged > sword. > 3. Can it reliably setup parallel build processes?
ive never heard of waf. picking "the new hot system" that has no real penetration or community is a bad idea. autoconf is probably the best at the moment. especially because people seem intent on using LTP for non-Linux targets. > My comments about autotools: > <snip> using autoconf doesnt mean we need to use any other autotool packages. a balance can be struck between straight makefiles (with the assumption of up-to-date linux system) and autoconf to do detection for people. have it output "filter" files for the toplevel build. the fact that people with up-to-date systems can easily go into a specific dir and run `make` and have it simply work is a great thing. when i investigate test cases, this cuts down setup time significantly. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
