> If this ever happens, I hope for waf to get some traction +1 for waf, I currently use it in my projects, it's features are very good/cool and it extensibility is very simple, basically as you have told.
> in short: implementing a (modern) build environment that does what people use build environments for is a *massive* undertaking I agree that write a new build system is somewhat wasteful work, if is this that you mean, I'd not fully understood your comment. (-1 for my english, rsrs) > It generates the script that the users need (configure, …), etc. For > compiling a software from a tarball, the Autotools are not required! (from Sébastien comment in his blog) Currently waf does basically same thing, you haven't to have waf installed to build, the 'waf' python script will require only python installed, as 'configure' requires bash/sh. PS: I know that your blog post is talking about CMake -> Autotools migration. Actually, I'm not a fan of CMake, it is most likely a Windows-friendly version of autotools. PS: I know it's very or completely different from autoconf/automake. I've used CMake for some time in my projects, it's somewhat like autotools but with less features. So if Gtk one day (very ahead) plans to move away from autotools I don't recommend CMake! On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 10:35 -0300, Victor Aurélio Santos wrote: >> Is there a plan to write a new build system or use another existing >> build system for Gtk instead of Autotools ? > > For what it's worth, I've written a blog post some time ago: > http://blogs.gnome.org/swilmet/2012/09/05/switch-from-cmake-to-autotools/ > -- Victor Aurélio Santos _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
