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