Re: [AD] build process overhaul

[Jon Rafkind <workmin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elias Pschernig wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 18:55 -0500, Jon Rafkind wrote:
>
>  
>
> > My vote is for scons which I said I would hack together a script for, 
> > but I was away for the holidays. Ill submit it once it works.
> >    
>
> Well, if we go for scons, I don't have to finish my automake stuff :)
>
> Another advantage of scons is, it can live together with the current
> build system, unlike automake. So we could keep the current system for a
> while until it works.
>
> Oh, and do you have anything written yet?
>
>  
Attached is something, although wildly unfinished. There are multiple 
ways to build a project with SCons but I think I like this way so far. 
The technique is to have a top-level SConstruct that calls SConscript 
files in subdirectories that each return a list of files that should be 
built and linked together to form liballeg.so. This makes it easy to 
return a different list of files for different platforms since all the 
SConscript files have to do is include the SConscript files for the 
correct platform, i.e. src/unix, src/linux for linux and src/win for 
windows, etc.

The first hurdle I have stumbled upon is that scons thinks 
src/linux/svgalibs.s is a "static" file and cant be compiled into a 
shared library. Im not sure what this is about but I will investigate.

The scons build doesnt do anything fancy like creating the platform 
specific header files nor the config.h file, but Ill get to that at some 
point.

One more thing, I used map, lambda, and reduce which I guess some people 
dont like so if anyone is really opposed to using these things feel free 
to change them or just complain until I change them.

Attachment: scons.tar.gz
Description: application/gzip