On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> wrote:
it would be a monumental undertaking to try to migrate the current build system to something substantially different. It's fine to let off steam about frustrations with build systems but talking about it here is not gonna cause it to change. And it won't change unless someone (or, more likely, some big company) is willing to invest an enormous effort in people time and machine resources to do so. Stefan's suggestion is much more practical.
This doesn't seem to me to be a winner takes all proposition -- there is no reason someone couldn't set up a new build system for Python, get it all working nicely on their platform(s) of choice, persuade others how wonderful it is, get contributions, etc. If it turns out to really be better/easier etc. than autoconf, then , and only then, would it make any sense to talk about replacing the existing official build system. And even then, the two could live in parallel for quite some time... -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov