[x264-devel] SCons support for x264

[Shachar Sharon]

I do *not* want to replace current build system with scons. I simply
suggested to give scons a try, and let the developers decide if it
improves anything. I also volunteered to do the actual implementation
of the code, alongside the current existing build system files. If
eventually people would have decide they don't like it, we could
always drop it and no harm done. My experience showed that over time,
as projects grow and become more complicated, modern build system such
as scons is a better choice then traditional GNU configure/make.

Going into details discussion of SCons vs GNU-Autotools is beyond  the
scope of this mailing list.

Apparently, the issue of build system is more flammable  then I
expected. Given the reactions so far, maybe its not a good idea for
this project after all.

Shachar S.


2009/4/19 Måns Rullgård <mans at mansr.com>:
> Mathieu Monnier <manao at melix.net> writes:
>
>>>> SCons is written in Python, has a user-friendly syntax, and may be
>>>> easily extended. Its main advantage is in simplicity and in the
>>>> ability to add custom operations. It also have a very good
>>>> auto-dependency detection mechanism.
>>> GNU make does all that too, but without the snakes.
>>
>> I wouldn't call GNU make "simple", nor would I say it has a "user
>> friendly syntax". But that would be trolling...
>
> The make syntax boils down to this:
>
> rule: prerequisites
>      commands
>
> How much simpler do you want it?
>
> --
> Måns Rullgård
> mans at mansr.com
> _______________________________________________
> x264-devel mailing list
> x264-devel at videolan.org
> http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/x264-devel
>