On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 03:41:32 +0100 Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...400...> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I conducted an experiment in building Inkscape with Waf, redoing the work I did a long time ago with a newer version (1.7.15) and using more of its features. A correct build of Inkscape, with internal libraries built separately, "inklib" built as a shared library, Bazaar revision fetching and .po file compilation, requires less than 250 lines of Python script (!!!).
I read on some mailing lists that Debian refused to package some software using Waf, because Debian considers shipping the "Waf binary" to be incompatible with the DFSG. I circumvented this problem by adding the Waf source distribution to the tree, which is a little bigger, but DFSG-compliant and works exactly the same.
Dear Krzysztof,
I've only just come across this thread, so pardon me if I ask you what is waf and what problem does it seek to solve?
From what I've read of the thread, it looks like (yet another)
replacement for make. What is it in your mind that makes waf so much better than make that it's worth switching to?
The way I see it, waf (like cmake) will make Inkscape harder to build not easier. As others have pointed out, it introduces new dependencies and, because it is unfamiliar to most people, it means they must spend a lot of time digging into waf's source code to find out what it's doing when it goes wrong. This isn't the best use of developer's time.
I'd be the first to admit that automake leaves a lot to be desired, but it is pretty straightforward to get shot of its ugliness and inefficiencies. I'd be happy to do this, but I don't want to upset anyone.
Yours,
Is.