SCons, Wine, and Winelib

Scott Ritchie scott at
Thu Feb 17 13:21:12 CST 2005

On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 10:13 -0500, Thomas J Fogal wrote:
>  <Pine.LNX.4.62.0502171314190.11662 at amboise.dolphin>Francois Gouget writes:
> > I've never use SCons either but the advantage of generating regular 
> > Makefiles is that many many developers are familiar with them. I would 
> *nod*. I agree.
> I get particularly upset when I download software and the build system
> doesn't work for some (usually minor) reason. make-based projects are
> quick hacks for a fix (for a great deal of people). its very unlikely i
> understand how to hack the current build system of the week.
> wasn't the original impetus that the new UNIX developer doesn't have to
> learn make/autoconf? so instead they just learn a different build
> systems software? I dont follow the logic there...

That's exactly the idea.  Ideally we can have a developer take his
project, run winemaker on it, and then build it in a single command.

Today, that developer has to first port his project to MinGW (a very
non-trivial step) and then hack around and fix the bad and broken
makefiles winemaker generates.  This requires extensive learning of
something very foreign and, from my experience, a bit complicated.  This
is why we've been desiring adding Visual Studio support to Winelib for
some time - there's less trouble for the migrator that way.  Our
original plan, of course, was to figure out a way to compile it with the
standard make files, but now we've got another option.

SCons already claims to work with building visual studio project files.
Unless I'm rather mistaken about what it actually can do, it seems as
though a lot of this work has been done for us, and we need simply
integrate it as an option.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list