Davyd Madeley wrote:
> Quoting James Henstridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I get the feeling that scons plus something like bksys might be worth
>> considering in the future, but it seems a bit immature right now. I'm
>> sure it has benefits right now, such as removing libtool from the build
>> pr
Quoting James Henstridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I get the feeling that scons plus something like bksys might be worth
considering in the future, but it seems a bit immature right now. I'm
sure it has benefits right now, such as removing libtool from the build
process (which takes up a noticeable
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>>>According to the devs, that is a feature of scons. This page has a
>>>workaround: http://www.scons.org/cgi-bin/wiki/ImportingEnvironmentSettings
>>>Although I think your real problem is badly written SConstruct-files.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It may be the fault of the person
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > 1) SCons intentionally ignores most standard *FLAGS (documentation says
> > so).
> According to the devs, that is a feature of scons. This page has a
> workaround: http://www.scons.org/cgi-bin/wiki/ImportingEnvironmentSettings
> Although I think your real problem is badly
> >According to the devs, that is a feature of scons. This page has a
> >workaround: http://www.scons.org/cgi-bin/wiki/ImportingEnvironmentSettings
> >Although I think your real problem is badly written SConstruct-files.
> >
> It may be the fault of the person writing the SConstruct file, but it is
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
>>1) SCons intentionally ignores most standard *FLAGS (documentation says
>>so). You have to edit one or more SConstruct files to force flags you
>>want for your platform (it's a SuSE packaging convention), not flags
>>decided by somebody for it. This is the simplest solutio
On 1/3/06, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 4) I did not find any DESTDIR support, needed for comfortable packaging
> > without root privileges. One has to go back 10 years and use:
> >
> > scons PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr install
>
> What is destdir? Can you explain what the equivale
On 1/3/06, Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have to package a few packages using scons. Creating an RPM package
> from scons based project became my nightmare. Prepare a working lprof
> package for SuSE AMD64 took me about 6 hours of editing and debugging of
> scons files and final
> 1) SCons intentionally ignores most standard *FLAGS (documentation says
> so). You have to edit one or more SConstruct files to force flags you
> want for your platform (it's a SuSE packaging convention), not flags
> decided by somebody for it. This is the simplest solution, working only
> in som
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all
> projects. Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are
> lots of techically superior build systems out there. Therefore, I
> suggest that GNOME should gradually replace Autotools with scons
> (www.sc
Hi,
Op Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:37:00 -0500, schreef Tom von Schwerdtner:
> Another side of the same coin, how much further along would GNOME be if we
> weren't chained to autotools?
That's an interesting question :-)
Anyhow, I'm not pretending to know enough about this subject matter to
make autho
For the sake of this discussion, I've been trying to get pygtk to
build with scons during this weekend. Yes, it took me many hours of fun
work to get pygtk minimally converted. And it's not finished.
Equivalents to 'make dist' and 'make distcheck' are not implemented, and
I suspect they will ta
Hi,
Le dimanche 18 décembre 2005 à 03:58 +0100, Samuel Abels a écrit :
> On So, 2005-12-18 at 01:37 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first of all, I love python.
> >
> > > 1. Scons is simply technically superior to GNU Autotools - with a big
> > >margin.
> >
> > Saying t
On So, 2005-12-18 at 01:37 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first of all, I love python.
>
> > 1. Scons is simply technically superior to GNU Autotools - with a big
> >margin.
>
> Saying this does not make it automatically true. Some further
> explanation required.
I'll give
On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 18:41 +0100, Fernando Herrera wrote:
>2) It's very slow. Automake regeneration is slow and configure scripts are.
I don't see how we can get around any speed issues here. The problem is
having to compile and run all of those little tests on the platform. Any
serious buil
Hi,
first of all, I love python.
> 1. Scons is simply technically superior to GNU Autotools - with a big
>margin.
Saying this does not make it automatically true. Some further
explanation required.
> 2. Scons is simple to learn, Autotools is not.
True. However, autotools is already learn
On Fr, 2005-12-16 at 17:23 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> 3. KDE has already migrated to scons.
Note that KDE uses bksys, which is a framework that is based on Scons.
"bksys aims at replacing completely autotools for common projects, so
this goes way beyond SCons' main goals."
http://dot.kde.org
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
I hope my arguments are very convincing and not inflammatory. Let's
get some good discussion going.
--
mvh Björn
Do you happen to know how easy cross compiling is with SCons? What is
the SCons equivalent of:
./configure --host=i586-mingw32msvc \
PKG_CONFIG_PATH=
On 12/17/05, Fernando Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1) We need to install 5 or 6 different versions of the autotools in
> order to bootstrap GNOME from CVS
>2) It's very slow. Automake regeneration is slow and configure scripts are.
>3) It's difficult to maintain
4) Most people
On 12/16/05, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting... this looks like a solution looking for a problem. There is
> no problem the autotools present to GNOME that could not be solved. All the
> weaknesses you listed about autotools clearly are not issues for GNOME
> developers, or else
On 12/17/05, Andy Tai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting... this looks like a solution looking for a problem. There is
> no problem the autotools present to GNOME that could not be solved. All the
> weaknesses you listed about autotools clearly are not issues for GNOME
> developers, or else
Interesting... this looks like a solution looking for a problem.
There is no problem the autotools present to GNOME that could not be
solved. All the weaknesses you listed about autotools clearly are
not issues for GNOME developers, or else GNOME won't be where it is
today.On 12/16/05, BJörn Lind
On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 13:47 +0300, Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
> You are probably not correct here Davyd, current gnome builds do require
> pkg-config to be installed.
I was specifically referring to autoconf and automake-*, however it also
applies to intltool, libtool and a bunch of other things
On 12/17/05, Davyd Madeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not think we should switch.
Ditto.
>From my understanding there is no easy way to do make dist and make
distcheck targets with scons.
(Not that I've used it personally, except for building a few things...)
iain
___
Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
В Сбт, 17/12/2005 в 15:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley пишет:
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 22:26 +, Andrew Sobala wrote:
Sean D'Epagnier wrote:
Isn't it true that scons requires you download and install it as an
extra program to use it? Many users may not have scons and may n
В Сбт, 17/12/2005 в 15:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley пишет:
> On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 22:26 +, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > Sean D'Epagnier wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't it true that scons requires you download and install it as an
> > > extra program to use it? Many users may not have scons and may not
> > >
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 22:26 +, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> Sean D'Epagnier wrote:
>
> > Isn't it true that scons requires you download and install it as an
> > extra program to use it? Many users may not have scons and may not
> > want to install it, but do want to install gnome (by compiling fr
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 17:23 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all
> projects. Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are
> lots of techically superior build systems out there. Therefore, I
> suggest that GNOME should gradually rep
Andrew Sobala wrote:
> Sean D'Epagnier wrote:
>
>> Isn't it true that scons requires you download and install it as an
>> extra program to use it? Many users may not have scons and may not
>> want to install it, but do want to install gnome (by compiling from
>> source code).
>
>
> This is identi
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:34:20AM +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 18:13 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > > > Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all projects.
> > > > Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are lots of
> > > > techically superio
Sean D'Epagnier wrote:
Isn't it true that scons requires you download and install it as an
extra program to use it? Many users may not have scons and may not
want to install it, but do want to install gnome (by compiling from
source code).
This is identical to the situation for autotools.
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 18:13 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > > Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all projects.
> > > Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are lots of
> > > techically superior build systems out there. Therefore, I suggest that
> > > GNOME shoul
Isn't it true that scons requires you download and install it as an
extra program to use it? Many users may not have scons and may
not want to install it, but do want to install gnome (by compiling from
source code).
BJörn Lindqvist:
In the mean time.. why don't you write up some Sconstructs fo
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 17:23 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> (Sorry for the inflammatory subject, it is meant to be
> humoristic. Although it's true :))
>
> Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all
> projects. Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are
> lots of tec
fre, 16,.12.2005 kl. 18.13 +0100, skrev BJörn Lindqvist:
> > > Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all projects.
> > > Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are lots of
> > > techically superior build systems out there. Therefore, I suggest that
> > > GNOME should
> > Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all projects.
> > Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are lots of
> > techically superior build systems out there. Therefore, I suggest that
> > GNOME should gradually replace Autotools with scons (www.scons.org).
>
> I'd
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
(Sorry for the inflammatory subject, it is meant to be
humoristic. Although it's true :))
Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all
projects. Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are
lots of techically superior build systems out there. Th
> Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all projects.
> Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are lots of
> techically superior build systems out there. Therefore, I suggest that
> GNOME should gradually replace Autotools with scons (www.scons.org).
I'd suggest t
(Sorry for the inflammatory subject, it is meant to be
humoristic. Although it's true :))
Gnome currently uses the GNU Autotools for building all
projects. Autotools is hard to work with and complicated and there are
lots of techically superior build systems out there. Therefore, I
suggest that GN
39 matches
Mail list logo
