Re: build systems

["Lucas Rocha" <lucasr gnome org>]

Hi,

2007/11/9, Ali Sabil <ali sabil gmail com>:
> On Nov 9, 2007 8:01 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 18:38 +0000, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > > I created an initially simple configuration system for SCons and wrote
> > > SConstruct files for building Richard Hughes gnome-power-manager. It
> > > turned out to be a pretty good exercise because g-p-m has many
> > > optional dependencies, such as DPMS and doxygen. Using SCons to
> > > configure, compile and install was at least five times as fast as
> > > using autotools.
> >
> > I'm currently adding a waf build system to PackageKit as a proof of
> > concept. We've got 90% of the functionality coded in about 3 hours, and
> > I'm no python hacker. waf just blows the socks off autotools.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
>
> I have usd waf quite a lot, it basically just blows off autotools,
> anyway, I am afraid the whole discussion will become pointless, as
> long as people criticize things without even giving them a try, just
> for the sake of criticizing... This reminds me the Distributed SCM
> mailing list thread ...

I don't want to comment about any specific build system. I have a
couple of more fundamental questions about this topic though:

 - What's the *problem* that needs to be solved that really demands us
to choose another build system?

- Are the current drawbacks of using autotools in GNOME so so so
annoying that it would be really worth the effort of migrating to
something else?

Honestly, I think there are much more important things to care about
than build systems at this moment. Changing the build system in GNOME
would involve a relatively large amount of (boring) (re-)work just to
reach the same old thing that we have now: "./configure && make &&
make install" (with some improvements of course but with some new
drawbacks also).

IMHO, if those questions above can't be answered convincingly, this
whole discussion is really pointless.

--lucasr