On Monday 27 October 2008, Gilles.Carry wrote: > Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues a écrit : > > A new build system for LTP would be really great for the reasons Cai > > mentioned. Autoconf is something that most developers are used with, but > > I personally don't like that much. There are other fairly recent build > > systems, such as waf (http://code.google.com/p/waf/) that are very light > > on dependencies, are fast and flexible. On my spare time I was working > > on a 'minimal' ltp tree, exchanging the makefiles by waf files, was > > planning to show when it would be ready for use. > > > > That said, autoconf is less intrusive on the current workflow of most > > developers, since they are already used to it, so it might be a better > > option. > > > > My personal preference is for waf, since with a simple 100K script at > > the top directory and waf files instead of make files we can have a > > powerful and mostly self contained build environment. But the long time > > developers know better what would be best for LTP. > > I don't know Waf but I've used alternate build tools. ie. SCons proves > to be very efficient fast and much easier than autoconf/automake. > Also, it's entirely dynamic : you don't need to re-run autoconf if you > add a new #include in a source file.
ive found scons to be deficient in many areas such as proper flag handling and cross-compiling. plus there's that whole python thing again ... -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
