The subject line mentions "Part 2". Is there a link to "Part 1"? What is the rationale for changing?
Make, autoconf, and automake are already widely ported/portable.
What are the criteria for evaluating alternatives?
That written in Python, so Python would require Python to build which would require Python to build which would require...Besides, SCons sucks. If I were using a build system written in Python, I'd use fbuild or Waf.On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:Scons? http://www.scons.org/doc/production/HTML/scons-user.html
On Mar 13, 2015 1:44 PM, "Ryan Gonzalez" <rymg19@gmail.com> wrote:_______________________________________________So...I've been looking stuff up. Don't have too much free time right now, but it was mostly Googleing.I have deemed three ideas to be best for Python:- Write a custom makefile generator. I have some ideas, but they likely won't come to light any time soon.- Use Boost.Build. It seems ugly and complicated, but it actually has a full configuring system that can detect libraries and try to compile source files. It's written in C89, not C++, and its dependency is the Boehm GC, which probably supports everywhere that Python runs on.Only issue? It's undergoing a rewrite in Python. However, at the rate it's going, Python will likely be at version 7 by the time they finish.- Stick with autotools. Trying to avoid this.Thoughts? Again?--Ryan[ERROR]: Your autotools build scripts are 200 lines longer than your program. Something’s wrong.
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/--Ryan[ERROR]: Your autotools build scripts are 200 lines longer than your program. Something’s wrong.