On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 01:19 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 23 October 2008, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > Waf is interesting and with the right amount of Python decorators and > > Python nose testcase implementation, the build dependency information > > can become comparable to make. > > > > However, here are my questions and points of concern: > > 1. It's not mature. > > 2. It's duplicating a lot of similar logic from Python nose > > unnecessarily, in a not really intuitive way. > > 3. It doesn't have a comparable set of logic to GNU make's implicit > > rules, which greatly reduce the make logic -- this is a double-edged > > sword. > > 3. Can it reliably setup parallel build processes? > > ive never heard of waf. picking "the new hot system" that has no real > penetration or community is a bad idea. autoconf is probably the best at the > moment. especially because people seem intent on using LTP for non-Linux > targets.
Although you put that in a somewhat troll-ish way, that was my original concern about using waf. However, being new is not necessarily a bad thing, waf does have very interesting features. Also, it's perfectly usable for non-Linux targets for that matter, since it depends only and only python >= 2.3, which is available for a number of platforms. -- Linux on Power Test Team IBM STG, Linux Technology Center - Brazil Phone: +55 19 2132-3673 (T/L: 839-3673) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
