On Dec 3, 2007 2:21 PM, Nicolas Trangez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Need to write up on this, no time now though, sorry. One of the primary > reasons is the lack of crosscompiling support.
I'm not sure what you mean by lack of crosscompiling support. Crosscompiling needs very little. 1. A compiler that runs on your host OS, and produces output for some target OS/arch. 2. A set of dependencies (if any) built for that target OS/arch. 3. A non hardcoded build process that handles the above two steps without puking. In XMMS2 we crosscompile to both Linux/ARM and Windows from for example a Linux host. This is just a matter of telling waf what compiler to use, pointing to a set of dependencies, and if the target-OS differs from the host-OS, we have a --target-platform=win32 for example. Based on this the configure checks determine what .c-files should be included, and what defines should be used, and then everything builds correctly. It's as simple as that. > Overall I think waf could > be used for pretty basic high-level applications and even relatively > small libraries which do not have lots of configure-time variables (ie > projects which got a pretty straight-forward autotools setup nowadays > too), but is not suited (yet?) for more low-level libraries, Not sure what you mean here. In the XMMS2 project we have a highly configurable setup. We have 50isch plugins depending on half the planet, a couple libraries, c/cpp/py/rb/pl/lisp language bindings, some code generation. Everything depending on anything other than glib is optional (almost 100% true), so we do have a lot of configure time variables, with support for building on Linux/BSD/OSX/Windows/Solaris. All in all a fairly complex setup, without a complex build system. Compared to building something big like GLib this is a very small project ofc, but isn't it just more source files, and more options? I don't see where the complexity arises, but then again, I haven't been hacking on the GLib (perhaps a stupid example) build system. If a build system becomes complex to use just because it happens to be a big project, then bugs should probably be filed that describes those limitations. Here is the waf BTS: http://code.google.com/p/waf/issues/list > next to the > fact I'm afraid the lack of documentation of both the internal code and > end-user docs are killers. That's why I asked you to add an example that demonstrates typical use of the feature you added with the above mentioned patch a while back when you wrote it. It would still be a nice addition. But yeah, waf really needs more documentation. -- Daniel Svensson, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list