What is the view of others on the use of SCons in code in Sage? Personally I've come to the opinion that it is more trouble than it is worth.
It may be that few people know how to use it properly, in which case you might ask why do they use it. I do not use a chainsaw, as I do not know how to use one properly! OK, the consequences for using a chainsaw are somewhat larger than using SCons, but the point is, if you do not know how to use something, it's probably best you do not. But I believe SCons has more fundamental issues. Here are a fraction of the issues I know about. 1) cliquer was trying to use a sun compiler 'cc' at one time, despite the fact there was no such compiler in the path, so it failed http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6852 I gather from Georg Weber that SCons was removed from Cliquer? http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6681 due to problems on OS X. That is one good bit of news to me. 2) PolyBoRi used to ignore CC and CXX. That was fixed, but now SCons uses a mixture of Sun and GNU flags if trying to build PolyBoRi with Sun Studio. http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/7034 3) c_lib uses a mixture of Sun and GNU compilers, despite I've tried my best to force it to honor the environment variables CC and CXX. http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6595 What do others think about SCons? Is it the best thing since sliced bread, or more trouble than it is worth? If something will not work with SCons, is converting it to a simple makefile and/or autoconf/automake system considered ok? Personally, I'd like to see the back of SCons. Dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
