My bad. I totally misread your introduction. * Jeffrey Ollie <jeff@ocjtech.us> [091122 11:46]: > The SCons build files are not meant to require emacs. If I've messed > something up and emacs is somehow required I would consider that a bug > and would try to fix it. > > As far as availability, I'm sure that SCons is one yum or apt-get or > <insert other package management system command> away. The only > people that would face more than a minor inconvenience are people that > prefer to download tarballs and compile and install things themselves. > > Yes, I'm sure that make is widely available, but as notmuch gets used > on a wider variety of systems some sort of configuration system will > become necessary. If I can prevent another project from going down > the autoconf/automake path I'll be happy. I started creating CMake > build files but I don't know CMake well enough to come up with a > working build. > > On 11/22/09, Bart Trojanowski <bart@jukie.net> wrote: > > * Jeffrey C. Ollie <jeff@ocjtech.us> [091122 08:47]: > >> The SCons build files included here *should* do everything that the > >> current Makefiles do, plus a little bit of configuration checking. To > >> build/install: > > > > Wouldn't that have the unfortunate side effect of making notmuch > > unusable w/o emacs and scons installed? > > > > GNU make has a much wider install base, and notmuch is still very useful > > without emacs. > > > > -Bart > > > > -- > > WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/ > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Jeff Ollie -- WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/