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
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.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
|