On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 13:52 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Peter Volkov Alexandrovich wrote:
The aim of scons is to replace gnu build system, but what are the weak
sides of gnu build system?
So far, scons is an exotic niche amongst other tools with almost no
relevant history.
This is a huge factor which should be carefully considered. Anything
related to portability has a value which is measured based on actual
experience.
Exactly. No matter which solutions people might come up with, they will
have to prove sustainability.
No matter how imperfect current autotools are, I haven't seen any tool
yet that comes close to the autotools ;)
It is not difficult to imagine that someone can invent something which
is much slicker than autotools but package maintainers need to
consider if they want their projects to be 'alpha' test-beds for
unproven packages since the burden is on the package maintainer to
make them work.
GNU autotools includes input from many thousands of users over many
years.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
