Re: Switching to Waf instead of SCons?

[Werner LEMBERG]

> 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/

This article

  http://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf

is perhaps one of the most important ones in the last few years
w.r.t. make tools.  This tool is *extremely* fast, and it cleans up
extremely well.  Both arguments are quite important IMHO since
lilypond has really zillions of files.

This tool is probably not completely mature, but it is worth a look,
and I assume that the author is quite willing to assist to fix
problems.

BTW, the corresponding thread in the hel-make mailing list starts
here:

  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-make/2009-06/msg00013.html


    Werner