I know you already mentioned not wanting Python as a dependency, but I was impressed with SCons when we deployed it on a project three years ago. Its biggest strength is that since it is just a Python framework, standard script debugging techniques work. That is a big advantage and worth the effort of installing Python (not a big deal these days). I don't remember SCons requiring additional packages beyond basic Python.
Richard On Friday February 4 2011 10:54:34 AJ ONeal <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > There's a hundred thousand make-like things out there: Autoconf, cmake, > qmake, scons, waf, rake, jake, etc. > > I want to invest time in learning one of these systems. > Give me a few arguments as to why one is more suitable than the other > please. > > Here are some criteria: > > - supports Linux, OS X (and preferably Windows) > - supports cross-compiling > - by "supports" I mean "was built with XYZ in mind" > - I don't want a hundred thousand dependencies (i.e. the complete perl or > python sdk) so I'm thinking scons and waf are out. <snip> -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
