20

What are the benefits and problems with the various Python make-like systems?

note We're using the denotations '(+)' and '(-)' respectively at the beginning of list items to indicate benefits and problems.

So far I'm aware of

  • buildit
    • was previously known as pymake
    • (-) seems to be obsolescing: last release was in late 2007
  • zc.buildout
    • (+) currently active as of 2010-07-20
    • uses rc-file-like syntax with [sections]
    • (-) python code cannot (?) readily be integrated into config files.
    • seems to place a lot of emphasis on working with .egg files.
  • scons
    • (+) currently active as of 2010-07-20
    • configuration files are written in pure Python
    • (+) python code can readily be integrated into config files
    • (-)? use of Python for config files may entail extra verbosity
  • waf
    • (+)? Mark says "Benefits as scons but faster"
    • Any downsides? Why are people still using scons?
Improve this question
21
  • "extra verbosity"? It sure seems clearer and more precise than any alternative. What's the point of this question? Commented Jul 20, 2010 at 20:12
  • perhaps as a repository for information about python make tools (at least that's my presumption considering the CW status) Commented Jul 20, 2010 at 20:15
  • I just did a quick bit of research into the options out there, and came up with this list. I'm wondering a) if there are more options and b) if there are some other notable aspects to the options listed here. Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 4:45
  • @S.Lott: You're saying you prefer the file format used by scons out of the options listed? What is imprecise or unclear about the file formats used by buildit or zc.buildout? From what I gather, those packages have file formats more specifically tailored to their task; as such I would expect them to be more concise, but less powerful, than scons' full-on Python format. Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 4:47
  • @intuited: "I would expect". Sounds like a value judgment, not a question or a fact. Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 15:37

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

One quirk of waf is that it's supposed to be copied into the source tree of the program. Scons is a lot more like make in that it's installed once on the system, and then you have essentially just a data file (in the form of a python program) in the source tree.

As a consequence, Scons is packaged on Ubuntu/Debian and waf is not.

It's possible but a bit hard in Scons to do metaprogramming that manipulates the dependency graph or adds new concepts for derivation. Apparently waf is better at that.

I have used Scons happily many times; for my next compiled project I will probably at least try waf.

You can read about Samba's experience with waf. They report that going from autoconf to Waf got the rpaths set correctly and shrunk the binaries by linking the necessary object files exactly once per program.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

2

Here is the status of 4 of the software build systems for Python 3, as of 2015-05-31.

Improve this answer

Comments

-1

When I used waf about 1.5-2 years ago, it had really sparse and poor documentation which greatly limited its utility. I haven't used waf in a while, though, so maybe that situation has changed.

Improve this answer

1 Comment

Should be a comment, it certainly isn't an answer.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.