Re: [jamboost] Scons vs BBv2 (was: Qt: moccing of cpp sources)

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 06:49:42

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 15:29, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> > > But they are switching to Scons at the moment...
> >> >
> >> > Are they? I haven't see any news about this on KDE mailing lists.
> >>
> >> Well, according to my colleague this was discussed and probably
> >> decided at the KDE Academy 2005 meeting in Malaga last week. He's
> >> working on cervisia and said that the first Scons files appear in
> >> the repository right now.
> >
> > Ehm... indeed. It looks like a couple of developers made SCons setup
> > for KDE, and the question which system to use did not really arise
> > (at least Boost.Build was not considered at all).
>
> I think we'd better think carefully about this. More and more
> recently, I've been seeing people who are otherwise highly inclined
> toward Boost using Scons instead of Boost.Build. We should be asking
> why. What does Scons do better than Boost.Build? Is it more
> reliable? Easier to understand? Better supported? etc.

Maybe, you can first ask those people. We can make guesses, but only they know 
for sure.

Personally, I suspect that Python might be a selling point.

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2