On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote:
> > Yes, I am investigating cmake, it's pretty cool. I wrote some macros > for cython etc. What I like about cmake is that it is cross platform > and it just produces makefiles on linux, or visual studio files (or > whatever) on windows. When I get more experience with it, I'll post > here. That's exactly what I don't like about cmake - it means you can't produce accurate builds (you need to rerun cmake everytime you change the configuration or dependencies, whereas this is automatic with scons/waf). It also have (used to have) very poor documentation unless you buy the book - but it looks like this is changing. > What I don't like on cmake is that it uses it's own language, instead > of python, on the other hand, so far everything seems to just work. > Contrary to numscons, where it looks almost like a new python program > just to build numpy. Again, numscons is just a library on top of scons to support things we need in numpy, it is not really a new program - it is a separate package to avoid adding experimental code to numpy itself. Numscons is ~ 3000 LOC, of which 1000 is for the core, 1000 for blas/lapack/fortran support, and 1000 for tools which are not properly supported in scons (recent MSVC, python extensions). I think you would have almost as much work with cmake if not more - when I started numscons, cmake did not have fortran support (it now has, although I don't know how far - it does not seem to handle mixed fortran/C, for example). If you don't mind fast changing software, you should look at waf: it is extremely fast, based on python. It also handles a lot of distribution issues already (tarball generation, compiler selection, etc...) which scons does not. David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
