Bo Peng a écrit :
...
3) KDE devels had to implement a lot of feature on top of Scons but
Scons developers weren't interested in them so that was a fork.
lyx is smaller... I guess we do not need many.
The point is that CMake has already been extended to meet KDE's need. So
I guess we won't need any extension with Cmake.
...
5) last but not least, Scons is stuck to python 1.5 or something.
So you mean I have to write in python 1.5 for its extensions? I guess
scon tries to make itself runable on old systems.
Yes. So I guess that it you don't want to contribute back your
extension or bug fixes (if any) you are free to use whatever version of
python >= 1.5.
Personnaly I like the CMake approach better because they delegate the
compilation step to the sytem: Makefile for Unix (or Mingw), MS Visual
studio project for MS VC++ users. This approach allows people working
with different systems to work cooperatively without any porting
porblem.
These look nice. But you know I am biased to python. Because if I have
to write an extension, I can do that immediately with python, with all
the help from python modules, not something I have to learn from
scratch, however simply it may be.
Sure, the one who the work is the one who decide ;-), I just wanted to
give you some info about both softwares. In any case, the KDE experience
showed that the biggest step would be to move from autotools. Switching
from Scons to Cmake was quite straight forward apparently.
Abdel.
