[nanomsg] Re: Simplifying CMake build
- From: Schmurfy <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:01:14 +0200
nice !
there is something else that was not mentioned in the discussion: getting
the dependencies right to actually build the configure script can be a real
nightmare with autotool/automake spitting errors and warnings about missing
m4 macros when all I wanted was just building this damn thing (I am not
speaking about nanomsg here), it already happened to me many times and I
just gave up on the idea.
That's certainly not a coincidence that most projects using these tools add
the configure script to version control...
On the other hand it never happened to me with cmake, you either have the
right version or you don't and it clearly tells you, add on top of that
that cmake actually can be installed from sources painlessly.
I am also a big fan of out of tree build, that's a lot cleaner than having
all these artefacts in the sources folder.
On 30 August 2013 09:53, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Sergei,
>
> I can maintain cmake scripts.
>>
>
> Wow! Great! Welcome on board :)
>
> So, to get started with the thing, can you get the scripts from the
> history in the repo and double-check them against autotools build
> scripts. The goal is to ensure that all the feature macros are defined
> in the same way under CMake and autotools. Also, take care to generate
> the version numbers in the same way as autotools do. Version numbering
> has to be consistent otherwise it'll be a mess (imagine people reporting
> bugs with inconsistent version numbers).
>
> Once done, send me the patch (don't forget to mention it's MIT
> licensed!) and I'll merge it in.
>
> Afterwards, we can proceed to adjusting the CI environment to build both
> CMake and autotools versions on all platforms etc.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
