On 2013/12/31 13:34, frantisek holop wrote: > hmm, on Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:30:33PM +0100, Landry Breuil said that > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 01:26:03PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote: > > > > > > no waf maintainer so i am putting this out here for > > > discussion. > > > > > > right, so mpv in their next release switched from the > > > mplayer inherited custom configure/gmake build system > > > to waf. good move? at first glance yes, as probably > > > anything is better then gnu autotools. > > > > Hell no. Waf is far worse than autohell, and is in the same boat as gyp, > > scons & jam in my book. > > i thought autohell is considered the rock bottom :]
It's a huge mess, but at least there's a decent amount of knowledge about how to work with it, both amongst packagers, and amongst (some ;) upstream developers. And it's already been modified as needed to handle things for OpenBSD. > waf is at least not in m4 :] waf seems at something like the stage of autoconf 2.13 or so, where many people using it are patching it and want you to use their own version, making it impossible to centralise any os-specific changes that are needed. If people are looking for a non-autoconf build system, cmake seems about the best choice.. it's not perfect, but CMakefiles are fairly readable, and it's nicely cross-platform..
