[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons?

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:28:19 -0600

On 9/12/09 1:42 AM, "John Mandereau" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Le vendredi 11 septembre 2009 à 20:39 -0600, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
>> I've successfully written the script so that it works on my setup, but where
>> should I put so that it will be available?  And should I even
>> try to go this way, or should I write my own parsing code?
> You may put this module in python/auxiliar, which isn't crowded enough
> to require creating another directory included in PYTHONPATH for
> third-party modules.

OK, Done.

>> Writing my own code seems like a waste of time, but if the license is going
>> to cause problems, I guess I could do so.
> It should not cause problems.  We might end up including Waf in the
> source tree too (it's less than 100 kb).  The only thing to pay
> attention to is making sure third-party modules include copyright
> headers and the full text of the license either in the source file or in
> a separate file in the source tree.

The source file for has copyright information, a description of
the license, and a link to the full license.  Is that enough?

> I'm going to push configure checks for Texinfo this week-end, so let's
> be prepared to merge our respectives configure() functions in
> wscript :-)

I've pushed a wscript containing the code to

(a) parse VERSION to obtain VERSION (and I obtained PACKAGE_NAME from
VERSION as well)

(b) do what you suggested to get LILYPOND_BINARY

I've tested each bit of the python code, but I haven't tested the whole
thing, because I don't have multiple setups with different lilypond
configurations to test them.

Anyway, I hope this helps.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]