On 9. 6. 25 19:20, Greg Stein wrote:
Branko,

With all your recent work on the scons and cmake build systems, should we
throw one out?

In the past, we had three separate build systems (iirc). One from
autotools, one custom .py script, and a Windows makefile or such. Then we
threw out all that junk and moved to SCons for all platforms, and our
custom bits simply became python code within scons.

But it seems we are back to dual-maintenance of build systems (again).

What is your [Branko] thinking on going with just one, or keeping both?

Others: how do you think we should proceed? It feels like there is more
weight towards CMake over the past years.

Personally, I like scons in that it uses python, so "we" know how to extend
it well for our needs. I don't know enough about CMake to judge it.

Thoughts, people?

This very question went through my mind earlier today, when I made SCons work on ARM64 Windows. And a couple days ago, when I installed Python 2 and SCons 2.3.0 to verify that the build still works with our baseline versions. :)

I like SCons, too. Our SConstruct is a bit of a mess in places, but that's our problem, not SCons'.

I have a deep antipathy towards CMake. But in today's world where Windows development is basically becoming dependent on CMake, we can't ignore it. And since we do have a CMake build, it should work "everywhere".

So it comes down to platform support. To build Serf with SCons, you need Python 2 and a compiler. Getting CMake to work is a bit more involved, unless it's Windows/Linux/*BSD.

Do we care?

-- Brane

Reply via email to