Hey all,
this topic has been brought up already a couple of times, for example on [1].
What do you think about dropping Waf support in Geany and in the Geany-Plugins project?
While I was defending Waf in Geany, I somewhat changed my mind. Not because I don't like it anymore, but I increasingly see the efforts in maintaining two (to be exactly three for Geany) build systems is too much. Since the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it, I thought about dropping the Waf support. It seems nobody knows it well enough and probably except for a few users nobody is using it. (And obviously I don't do so much anymore and also lost a bit interest in maintaining forever.)
The other thing is that Waf causes often problems for distro packages, especially for the Debian folks [2].
So, I'd go the easy way in this case and just remove Waf. Then we only need to maintain the autotools based build system for non-Windows systems and the make based for Windows.
For Geany-Plugins, we would need to get something working on Windows but maybe we could re-use Geany's make based system for Windows here.
What do you guys think?
[1] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3460449&gro... [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645190
Regards, Enrico
Le 16/07/2012 19:36, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
Hey all,
this topic has been brought up already a couple of times, for example on [1].
What do you think about dropping Waf support in Geany and in the Geany-Plugins project?
While I was defending Waf in Geany, I somewhat changed my mind. Not because I don't like it anymore, but I increasingly see the efforts in maintaining two (to be exactly three for Geany) build systems is too much. Since the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it, I thought about dropping the Waf support. It seems nobody knows it well enough and probably except for a few users nobody is using it. (And obviously I don't do so much anymore and also lost a bit interest in maintaining forever.)
The other thing is that Waf causes often problems for distro packages, especially for the Debian folks [2].
So, I'd go the easy way in this case and just remove Waf. Then we only need to maintain the autotools based build system for non-Windows systems and the make based for Windows.
For Geany-Plugins, we would need to get something working on Windows but maybe we could re-use Geany's make based system for Windows here.
What do you guys think?
I don't mind much, since I don't use Waf nor build on Windows myself. But yes, I agree that it Autotools and Windows-specific makefiles covers all platforms there is no need to maintain an N-th build system.
This said, the only time I wanted to build on Windows I used Waf -- though I haven't even tried the specific makefiles.
So I don't mind, but I probably won't maintain Waf either because of a lack of interest and knowledge.
My 2¢. Regards, Colomban
[1] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3460449&gro... [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645190
Regards, Enrico
On 12-07-16 10:36 AM, Enrico Tröger wrote:
Hey all,
this topic has been brought up already a couple of times, for example on [1].
What do you think about dropping Waf support in Geany and in the Geany-Plugins project?
While I was defending Waf in Geany, I somewhat changed my mind. Not because I don't like it anymore, but I increasingly see the efforts in maintaining two (to be exactly three for Geany) build systems is too much. Since the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it, I thought about dropping the Waf support. It seems nobody knows it well enough and probably except for a few users nobody is using it. (And obviously I don't do so much anymore and also lost a bit interest in maintaining forever.)
The other thing is that Waf causes often problems for distro packages, especially for the Debian folks [2].
So, I'd go the easy way in this case and just remove Waf. Then we only need to maintain the autotools based build system for non-Windows systems and the make based for Windows.
For Geany-Plugins, we would need to get something working on Windows but maybe we could re-use Geany's make based system for Windows here.
What do you guys think?
Sounds fine to me as long as it doesn't mess up your great Windows builds.
In a perfect world we could also eventually drop (or not rely on) the Windows Make files too since it seems like with a proper Mingw/MSYS setup the Autotools stuff is supposed work I think. I know the last time I tried it didn't work, but it's probably not something that can't be fixed.
So +1 to getting rid of Waf, also not because it's bad, just because it's extra work for little benefit (to me at least).
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Am 16.07.2012 19:36, schrieb Enrico Tröger:
Hey all,
this topic has been brought up already a couple of times, for example on [1].
What do you think about dropping Waf support in Geany and in the Geany-Plugins project?
While I was defending Waf in Geany, I somewhat changed my mind. Not because I don't like it anymore, but I increasingly see the efforts in maintaining two (to be exactly three for Geany) build systems is too much. Since the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it, I thought about dropping the Waf support. It seems nobody knows it well enough and probably except for a few users nobody is using it. (And obviously I don't do so much anymore and also lost a bit interest in maintaining forever.)
The other thing is that Waf causes often problems for distro packages, especially for the Debian folks [2].
So, I'd go the easy way in this case and just remove Waf. Then we only need to maintain the autotools based build system for non-Windows systems and the make based for Windows.
For Geany-Plugins, we would need to get something working on Windows but maybe we could re-use Geany's make based system for Windows here.
What do you guys think?
As long as I don't need to maintain autotools I'm fine with every solution I just never understood how it really works even I tried a couple of times. ;) However: One good maintained system is better than 2 doing different things.
Cheers, Frank
On 16/07/2012 18:36, Enrico Tröger wrote:
the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it
Well, it's quite basic and needs a bit more work like allowing overridden CFLAGS. It doesn't install files like README, geany.html, etc. It also doesn't regenerate dependencies for each source file on-the-fly like autotools (and I expect Waf) does.
It wouldn't bother me if Waf support was removed, but OTOH it looks like quite a lot of work went into it. I don't mind adding obvious updates to wscript when necessary, but can't promise to test them ;-)
Nick
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:22:08 Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
We are currently planning a new release for Geany as well as for Geany-Plugins.
How about sf bug tracker ID 3522755 then? The order is still wrong, and I altered the fix as suggested by Colomban several months ago.
On 13-02-21 09:35 AM, Dimitar Zhekov wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:22:08 Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
We are currently planning a new release for Geany as well as for Geany-Plugins.
How about sf bug tracker ID 3522755 then? The order is still wrong, and I altered the fix as suggested by Colomban several months ago.
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3522755&group_id=15...
In case anyone hates SF.net search/filter UI as much as me :)
Cheers, Matthew Brush
Le 21/02/2013 18:35, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:22:08 Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
We are currently planning a new release for Geany as well as for Geany-Plugins.
How about sf bug tracker ID 3522755 then? The order is still wrong, and I altered the fix as suggested by Colomban several months ago.
Committed as https://github.com/geany/geany/commit/99fbe0bd8ca3882fc4c2c96b4e241301def74c..., thanks.