Build system (was Re: Future of KDE Development)

[Mike Richardson]

On Tuesday 15 February 2005 16:11, mETz wrote:
> On Dienstag Februar 15 2005 00:14, Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > On Monday 14 February 2005 23:30, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > I looked at SConscript you've posted and I'm a bit scaried now.
> > >
> > > I also had a look at it and then I remembered why I didn't like it. It
> > > feels like writing a program which compiles my program instead of
> > > declaring some facts in order to have another tool compile my program.
> >
> > I think it's much better too use a widely spread language like python for
> > writing the makefiles than some special dialect, like cmake provides, it
> > might look more complex, but learning the python basics isn't as hard as
> > remembering again just another unusual language.
>
> Ugh, I don't want to learn _any_ new language. all I want is set a few vars
> and be done (i.e. like Makefile.am or qmake projects work right now) and
> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one with this opinion. Coding C++ is
> complex enough, don't make it even more confusing with weird
> script-languages like perl or python.

I think there is a split between "simple" builds, where a "simple" Makefile.am 
can state all you need, and "complicated" builds which need to adapt to lots 
of different conditions and options. I'd have thought that a scons build 
system can be set up so that "simple" builds remain simple but still allowing 
"complicated" builds to be a lot simpler that autohell makes it. Hmmm, hope 
I'm not arguing for a SConstruct.am here :))

>
> > Like Coolo said, Makefile.am are most times borked after developer try
> > even the most trivial changes, as they (like me on each second commit ;)
> > just miss some part of the semantics. Python or every other scripting
> > language would lower this barrier I guess.
>
> I don't know anything about python and looking at scons doesn't create the
> wish to change that.
>
> I for myself have decided to stick with qmake for now, don't need weird
> configure checks (besides, I think configure checks and compiling/linking
> rules don't have to be written in the same language).

For anything beyond a straight single-platform-compile-and-link I'd say that 
qmake is totally useless (I'm not saying that qmake is completely useless, 
just that it is very limited).

>
> Bye, Stefan aka mETz

Regards
Mike
www.rekallrevealed.org