Build system (was Re: Future of KDE Development)

[Guillaume Laurent]

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 19:47, Stanislav Karchebny wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 February 2005 21:11, mETz wrote:
> > I don't know anything about python and looking at scons doesn't create
> > the wish to change that.
>
> I second that. After looking at some scons scripts I didn't find them too
> convincing; especially for developer concentrated on getting his code
> delivered, not fighting with buildsystem

I can't spend much more than 12 hours a week on Rosegarden. So believe me, the 
last thing I want to do is "fight the buildsystem", and if scons had given me 
any serious trouble, I'd have thrown the whole thing away faster than you can 
spell 'automake'.

> - and for trivial cases cost of 
> autohell setup is much lower than that of scons unless you blindly
> copy-paste SConstruct files

Which is pretty much what I did.

> Probably forking off cmake into kmake and adding stuff like
> ADD_KPART(akregatorpart akregatorpart.cpp blahblahblah) would be the most
> efficient way to go (you don't have to learn anything - just look at single
> kmake manual page for "KPart building" and off you go).

Excuse me, but am I the only one who thinks that forking our own build system 
is worst possible option here ?

BTW with scons+bksys, kparts are built this way :

myenv.SharedLibrary( target = "libtest3part.so", source = test3part_sources )
myenv.LaFile( target = "libtest3part", source = "libtest3part.so" )

I think it wouldn't take much work to reduce this to a single line :-).

-- 
      Guillaume.
      http://www.telegraph-road.org