[nanomsg] Re: Simplifying CMake build
- From: Sergei Nikulov <sergey.nikulov@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:22:04 +0400
Martin,
2013/8/30 Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Sergei,
>
>
> 1. CMake doesn't work that well for cross-building.
>>
>>
>> Who said that? What was the exact problem and was it raised in
>> "cmake-dev" list?
>>
>
> Find the discussion here: https://github.com/250bpm/**
> nanomsg/pull/80#issuecomment-**20920440<https://github.com/250bpm/nanomsg/pull/80#issuecomment-20920440>
>
> AFAIU, it's not a specific bug, rather the overall state of
> cross-compilation support in CMake vs. autotools.
>
>
It is not true. CMake can be and used for cross compilation.
>
>
>> 2. CMake-generated packages have CMake dependency whereas autotools
>> packages are not dependent on autotools
>>
>>
>> Could you please provide name for that dependency?
>>
>
> When you unpack the source package you have to do "cmake .", thus cmake
> has to be installed.
>
> With autotools, the ./configure script is bundled in the package, so you
> don't need autotools installed to build the package.
To my knowledge when you do 'configure', autotools and perhaps m4 has to be
installed :-)
Now what? You have autotools for linux and cmake for windows.
Instead of one tool you've got both.
>
>
> I agree with Bruce - if it works why you cut it off?
>> It was an option - somebody who use it will support it and provide you
>> with pull request.
>> I don't think it was intrusive for source code.
>>
>
> It's because of the cost. Actual work needed to prevent bitrot of cmake
> build system. If you volunteer to keep it up-to-date and functional all the
> time, we can discuss adding it back.
>
Can we have both build systems? If somebody find that cmake build is
broken, then he'll fill the bug or pull request in github.
>
> Martin
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Sergei Nikulov
Other related posts:
