Should we get a waf?

[Eric S. Raymond]

Matthew Selsky <Matthew.Selsky at twosigma.com>:
> waf 2.x dropped support for 'type_name' and 'field_name' as arguments to check_cc().  So we'll need to work-around that and any other incompatibilities.  I'll work on this.

Tinkering with the existing build system will have been redundant if
we port to Go, and 1.9 is working well enough.  Thus you should coinsider
this a hedge against a future in which (a) the Go port fails or is incomplete,
abd (b) waf 1.9 goes pear-shaped on us.

(It's not that we actually have a Go port *planned* yet, but the likelihood
that we will go that route is rising and has to be factored into our planning.)

Thus, waf 2.9 workarounds are background priority.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.