[uae] Re: CMake
- From: Jochen Becher <jochen_becher@xxxxxx>
- To: uae@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:28:30 +0200
This are my arguments why I want to switch to CMake:
1. Some m4 scripts that are widely spread with autotools have bugs (e.g.
SDL and fsusage in E-UAE), especially when it comes to cross-compiling.
2. You have that different versions (1.4, 1.7, 1.9) which are all in use
and in-compatible.
3. It is a night-mare to find bugs in configure scripts.
4. CMake can also be adapted to any OS which supports C and it is much
simpler to port than autotools (so autools is already ported to nearly
any OS but it is very complex to support all those scripts on all OS).
5. Adding a new OS to autotools is also a annoying task: at least you
have to add the new system to config.guess manually for every
application you want to port (you cannot copy a new version of
config.guess because you never know what was changed in config.guess; at
least 'diff' must be used).
Regards, Jochen
Am Freitag, den 13.10.2006, 10:09 +0400 schrieb Peter Volkov (pva):
> Hello Richard.
>
> On 2006-10-10 at 18:15 -0400, Richard Drummond wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 October 2006 03:07, Jochen Becher wrote:
> > > cmake ... It is simple and robust.
> >
> > One for and one against. ;-)
> >
> > Any other opinions?
>
> All build systems have their pros and cons. The most important feature
> of autotools is that it was designed to work only with the lowest
> possible denominator standard utilities. Because of that, the package
> that uses autotools can be installed on almost any machine that offers C
> compiler but drawback is their complexity. So I'd say, if you do not
> feel yourself uncomfortable with autotools do not replace them with
> something else.
>
> Of course, IMO, configure.in should be polished a bit ;) but that is
> another problem that does not require build system change...
>
> Peter.
Other related posts:
