Dan~
Just a few small questions about scons to clarify...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:16:24 -0400, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Whatever we use is fine as long as:
a) We can edit the dependency file without having to know the language the tool's written in
I believe that scons will be able to automatically determine dependencies for most of what we do and what little we don't can be specified with little enough syntax that actual knowledge of the syntax is irrelevant.
Heh. I think you may underestimate the amount of preprocessing we do. :) Still, good enough.
> b) the tool can be convinced to scan the entire tree at startup andbuild a rebuild script that doesn't need the tool itself
it can be told to output what commands it would issue (to stdout) but not issue them. This output could be captured into a shell script of some such.
Is it clever enough to do cross-platform stuff? That is, can I run it on OS X and have it spit out a DOS batch file? (Not that this is a showstopper or anything, but it'd be really useful for cross-platform stuff and maintenance of the distribution)
> c) It's a language we can guarantee we've got available (which meanseither C or a language that compiles to parrot bytecode)
It is entirely in Python, thus while we do not yet have it compiling down to Parrot, conceptually it could...
I realize that none of those were questions, so here is the question. Given those answers to your requirements, would such a build system likely be accepted or would I be wasting effort?
Given that it sounds like it meets the criteria, I think it'd be fine. The only hitch I could see is if it uses C modules for python, which'd make generating pure bytecode for it tough. We could look at fixing that, though. (It'd be interesting if scons could be completely handled by the bytecode translator. A useful test)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
