[nanomsg] Re: Simplifying CMake build
- From: luca barbato <luca.barbato@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:27:23 +0200
On Aug 30, 2013 11:01 AM, "Schmurfy" <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
I'm an a conference and with limited connectivity here a terse reply. All
you are writing is valid for cmake macros as well and is taken care (thus
invalid). Shoddy developers are bound to make shoddy works.
> That's certainly not a coincidence that most projects using these tools
add the configure script to version control...
Shoddy projects not using the tools as it should be done.
> 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 disagree
> 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.
And nothing prevents you to have that with autotools.
Cmake can make sense for c++ projects that do not cross compile, not much
for a c project that is supposed to cross compile easily.
Lu
Other related posts:
