> So, how do SCons improve the dependency checking and the
> autoconfiguration?
This is a totally different issue.
When I'm talking about dependency checking, I'm talking about
dependencies between files in the source. So let's say I change a
header file, and three .cc files #include it. SCons will rebuild those
three cc files automatically because scons has machinery to check what
files a C++ file depends on by reading the actual source/header files
(and allows you to write your own scanners for your own file types).
Like Makefiles, you can manually specify dependencies in your
SConscript if you want, but except for custom build steps, it's easier
and more accurate to let scons figure all the dependency stuff out for
you.
The upside to this is that I almost never "make clean". I don't have
to. SCons figures what needs rebuilding on its own so I don't get left
with incomplete or corrupted builds. Since it's built into scons, it's
not as fragile as "make depend" which I've seen break in some very
weird ways...
> I saw that some SConscript (see src/build/SConscript.main) uses pkg-
> config to get rigth package configuration (for compilation, and
> linking).
> [...]
I've gushed a bit about scons. Let's turn to the downsides:
I would argue that SCons Achilles' heel would be it's checking of
packages and properties of the host system. It's "./configure"
equivalent is nowhere near as robust as autoconf, though I personally
feel that the ease of use is a valid trade off.
Also: speed. All the file scanning for dependencies slows scons down a
bit. (Among other things). I think that it's overall a net time win
compared to having weird crashes that go away with a full rebuild, but
that's a personal opinion.
-- Elliot
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
