yersinia wrote: > Perhaps off topic. Someone know the prons/cons of scons > > http://www.scons.org/? > My first impression is that it is very similar to cmake as design > phylosophy, I have worked with it a bit. What I've seen is that you have to do a lot of things by hand in SCons which CMake does for you. You can do pretty much everything with SCons given that you can include arbitrary Python code, but as the ratio of Python to SCons increases (and for complex projects, it will), you start wondering why you're bothering with a standard build system at all. FWIW, KDE tried to use SCons for KDE 4 at first, but rejected it because it didn't do what they needed, so they switched to CMake, which turned out to have been a good choice. > but use only phyton on the target system and this a plus, IMHO. I don't see how having to install Python is any easier than having to install CMake. OK, in Fedora, Python is almost always installed due to yum, but you still have to "yum install scons" or untar some tarball and CMake is also just a "yum install cmake" away. On operating systems other than GNU/Linux, both Python/SCons and CMake usually have to be installed, which means that you have to install 2 things instead of 1 if you want to use SCons. Using Python is not an advantage, it's an additional dependency. > On the other side, if i build a project for multiple UNIX platform, with > different compiler, i prefer to use the autotools. Why? Because SCons is too limited? ;-) Try CMake. KDE is using it successfully with at least g++ on multiple platforms (including OS X and MinGW), Sun Studio on OpenSolaris and M$VC on Window$. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
