For the sake of this discussion, I've been trying to get pygtk to build with scons during this weekend. Yes, it took me many hours of fun work to get pygtk minimally converted. And it's not finished. Equivalents to 'make dist' and 'make distcheck' are not implemented, and I suspect they will take some effort. So, definitely scons is not ready for GNOME yet; it provides basic infrastructure, but lacks some high-level features (eg. I had to reimplement PKG_CHECK_MODULES, AM_PATH_PYTHON, and AM_CHECK_PYTHON_HEADERS) and policy (eg. no concept of prefix, bindir, datadir, etc.). Nonetheless, it is clear to me now that scons is an order of magnitude more clean (detection+build logic are placed together, one language instead of m4/make/sh mix) and maintainable than autotools, and if we strive to build a more constrained build system on top of it like the KDE guys did, it will serve GNOME much better in the long term, IMHO. Just though I'd let you know of my weekend research... :) Patch: http://www.gnome.org/~gjc/pygtk-scons.diff -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net> The universe is always one step beyond logic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part