MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To:
 <87r5rqmq5j.fsf@kunyang.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
References: <1258897630-22282-1-git-send-email-jeff@ocjtech.us>
	<20091122141501.GH17268@jukie.net>
	<935ead450911220800r47284335n301a2b2432638c72@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r5rqmq5j.fsf@kunyang.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:02:18 -0600
Message-ID: <935ead450911221202w58d41495q5eca4072ce343e49@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeffrey Ollie <jeff@ocjtech.us>
To: Jed Brown <jed@59a2.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Not Much Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] Add SCons build files.
Precedence: list

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Jed Brown <jed@59a2.org> wrote:
>
> I can do a CMake build if that's desirable. =C2=A0While I prefer it to SC=
ons,
> particularly when config/build times are an issue and you want to have
> several active build trees, it is a significantly heavier dependency.
> With SCons, you can dump scons-local (a pure Python script) into the
> source tree and then users only need Python. =C2=A0There are lots of othe=
r
> lightweight build tools.

It would be interesting to compare SCons and CMake.  CMake is probably
more widely used since it's adoption by KDE but I like the fact that
SCons build scripts are lightly camouflaged Python scripts.  CMake's
syntax has so far seemed to get in the way of me figuring out what I
needed to do.

While I prefer SCons, I wouldn't be unhappy if CMake was chosen.

--=20
Jeff Ollie