[nanomsg] Re: Simplifying CMake build
- From: Tony Simpson <agjasimpson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 01:39:43 +0100
Hi Martin,
The windows build is quite important to me, is this something I can help
with? What would be required to add a windows build slave?
Tony
On 29 August 2013 15:18, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Bruce, Julien,
>
> The main reason is to ease the maintenance burden and QA. It's really hard
> to keep single build system working, let alone two.
>
> That being said, if there are volunteers to keep CMake build system
> synchronised with autotools build system, I'll be happy to hand over the
> responsibility :)
>
> If so, I would start with adjusting our CI cluster (
> http://build.nanomsg.org/**waterfall <http://build.nanomsg.org/waterfall>)
> to test CMake builds in addition to autotools builds. Adding some Windows
> boxes to the cluster would help as well (CMake differs from autotools by
> its ability to produce MSVC projects).
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 29/08/13 16:03, Bruce Mitchener wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Schmurfy <schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:schmurfy@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>> Why was CMake put aside ?
>> I always found CMake way more usable than autoconf/automake and the
>> piles of crap that come with it.
>>
>>
>> I agree myself ... especially on Mac OS X where you want to deal with
>> things like universal binaries and an xcode project is useful.
>>
>> - Bruce
>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
