On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:01:31PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > [about Makefiles] > > > Don't waste your time understanding them, as their timelife is now > > known to be very limited. > > Are you sure that SCons is the right choice? What about cmake?
I used cmake for a project approximately half the size of lilypond, and I don't recommend it. The main reason is that there's virtually no documentation -- they really push the "free program, sell support" model. Which is a completely fair business model... but it got really annoying to continually read "buy our manual for $XY" when I was trying to set up the system. I actually got most of my "how to use cmake" info from reading blog posts about the system by random bloggers. :( Their invented macro language isn't _bad_, but it's not very flexible. That's particularly a concern for our build system, which involves a huge number of weirdnesses concerning the internals reference and the translations. If we just had the English texinfo manuals, I might cautiously recommend cmake (I got cmake to work with texinfo for Marsyas), but as it is, I definitely think cmake would be wrong. That said, I'm not certain that SCons is the right choice. waf looks quite interesting, especially since it's 80kb and requires no installation. It's also written in python, so we'd still have that flexbility. However, I'm not certain how mature waf is -- SCons is definitely used by some big projects. (so is cmake, I must admit) Ultimately though, I'm fine with whatever John wants to use. ... hey, SCons seems to have a "no installation required" version: scons-local. Ok, that eliminates the main point in favor of waf! :) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
