apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian W. Fitzpatrick" <f...@red-bean.com>
Subject Re: apr/apr-util python dependence
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:46:51 GMT
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 05:13, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>     Automake is clearly not a choice, nor has it ever been for a
>     project of considerable size.  And recursive make clearly
>     sucks -- the PHP project got rid of it 2 years ago.  We agree
>     on these points.


> > It was also written in Python because it is *just* starting. That script
> > will also product .dsp and .dsw files in the future (the Subversion
> > project generates these files, so I intend to follow that model). For now,
> > it is just starting: it got rid of the recursive make crap. But there is a
> > lot more that it can do.
>     However I completely disagree that Python (or Perl or PHP) is
>     a good choice for use in build systems.

As part of the configure process, I would agree with you, but as part of
buildconf, I disagree--not everyone needs to run buildconf--only
developers, and if you're a developer, it's *really* not asking that
much to have Python on your dev box.

> > So no... switching to a shell script would not be beneficial, as it would
> > cut off future capabilities.
>     I doubt that.  .dsp and .dsw files are just other text files
>     which can easily be created using sh, grep, sed, tr etc.

Ick. Ick ick ick ick ick.  "Easily" is obviously a subjective term.  Who
wants to write (and, more importantly, *maintain*) hundreds (or
thousands) of lines of /bin/sh code?  Not to mention the fact that
Python can be much more compact than /bin/sh after you hit a certain
level of complexity.

Anyway, I suppose that agreeing to disagree may be for the best here. 
Subversion has required python to run autogen.sh for years now, and it's
been great for us.


View raw message