[Python-ideas] Rewriting the build system (part 2)

[Chris Barker]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Ned Deily <nad at 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 at noaa.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20150316/3c84df49/attachment.html>