Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons?

[Graham Percival]

On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 08:25:24PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > Jan proposed SCons [0], and after having read SCons User Manual, I
> > think we could make good use of it.  However, SCons has severe speed
> > issues, which Waf [1], one of his younger (and Python-based, just
> > like SCons) competitors, doesn't have -- see benchmarks [2] and [3].
> 
> Please have a look at tup too:
> 
>   http://gittup.org/tup/

While I feel incredibly guilty for speaking against any project
that includes a link to XKCD, I really do not think this is the
best project for us.

- is it portable?  (quote: "there is no configure script, so you
  just have to hope my C is portable")
- can we distribute it?  scons and waf can be run as a standalone
  python script; tup evidently requires compiling.  That might not
  be an issue for you and me, but what about a casual doc
  contributor?
- can we extend it?  Our docs need a *huge* amount of extra
  python scripts and custom rules.

Cheers,
- Graham