apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: apr/apr-util python dependence
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:01:24 GMT
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 10:13:51AM +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:22:56AM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > > requiring automake is not something I personally would be excited about...

I'd -1 it right off the bat. No way on automake.

> > > like to see how bad a conversion to ordinary sh would turn out..  also, I'd
> > > guess that a conversion to the less cool but more widely
> > > ported/precompiled/preinstalled P* scripting language would be a rather quick
> > > and would not suffer greatly from uncoolness and would pick up additional
> > > people able and/or willing to maintain it ;)
> > 
> >     Remember that the primary focus of a build system is not ease
> >     of maintenance or being written in your preferred scripting
> >     language.
> > 
> >     No - the primary focus is being portable.  That is why you
> >     don't see build systems written in Perl, PHP or Python.
> The subject is whether Python can be required for running buildconf, not
> for running configure && make.  I don't see a problem requiring Python
> for buildconf.

Exactly. buildconf is used by *developers*, not users. Tarballs won't
require Python at all to config and build them.

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.

So no... switching to a shell script would not be beneficial, as it would
cut off future capabilities.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message