Re: would it be time to replace scons with meson build system?

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 3/8/20 11:34 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote:
>> These requirements are impossible to fulfill, and especially that "one
>> stage only" requirement is just bullshit.
> 
> And yet, scons seems to fulfill it in a passable manner.

After wasting lots of time by implementing basic things like shared
libraries.
Or fighting various stupid bugs.
Even esr gave up on scons upstream afaik.


>> If people would read and follow the documentation instead of having
>> their own stupid ideas on how to play tricks on a build system, even
>> autotools and friends would have been better than this unbearable
>> thing called scons.
> 
> scons seems pretty bearable to me.  After reading and following the doc.

The single stage thing is painfully slow and wasting a lot of resources.
Not everybody is building gpsd on fast hardware.
Also its a PITA to debug issues in scons itself. Luckily at the moment
it works.

>> - and as long as you follow the documentation and don't play stupid
>> tricks (again) with the build system, building gpsd will be absolutely
>> easy for those who have to.
> 
> Yup, just as it is now.
> 
> Compare that to all the people that have tried to create makefiles for
> gpsd and failed totally.

As far as I remember there was autotools before scons, and nobody tried
to build a makefile based build system yet? If I'm wrong, I'd happily
take pointers.


The problem with make only are the various options you have to figure
out at build time. Thats ahy I like build systems with two stages. Once
your makefiles are generated and then you can code and debug and just
call make and things will be fast.



-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature