Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] building with cmake

[Marcus D. Leech]

On 09/14/2015 10:51 PM, Robert Durkacz wrote:
> Thanks Nathan for that information. If I can capture the command lines
> I will be all right.
>
> I would like to express an opinion about make. It is a clever utility.
> That link shows that nearly everyone uses make in some form or
> another. Whether it is cmake or auto-tools it would be better if
> whatever generates make files produces files which do justice to make.
> I do not see that this is the case either with cmake or auto-tools.
> You get something that might work if there are no errors but is overly
> complex and obscure for maintaining a build. It is a side-issue with
> respect to SDR of course but I am interested in promoting make for
> stand-alone use.
I've been a "make" user since around 1979/1980.   That a "meta-make" 
system would emerge was absolutely inevitable.

When a project blooms in portability, size, dependencies, and "reach", 
the use of a meta-make scheme of some sort actually makes those
  kinds of project practical.

I still use naked "make" for smaller projects.


> On 14 September 2015 at 02:58, West, Nathan <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Robert Durkacz <address@hidden>
> > wrote:
> > > My question is, is there some recommended way to get the command lines
> > > printed out as they are executed.
> >
> > with cmake generated make files you can use make VERBOSE=1 or define the
> > cmake variable CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=On.
> >
> > > Also there is something called pybombs. Is this an alternative to
> > > cmake?
> >
> > No. Pybombs is a way to build gnuradio and dependencies inside a target
> > prefix.
> >
> > > If so is the gnuradio build system in a state of flux?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Can anyone point me to some document or forum where the whys and
> > > wherefores of the build system are discussed?
> >
> > I cannot and as far as I know there is no document formally justifying the
> > choices. If you are turned off by cmake compared to autotools then you're
> > probably in the minority of C++ developers [0] (apologies for the crappy
> > presentation, but it's the only source of this info I know of, anyway see
> > box #12).
> >
> > [0] box 12 in
> > http://blog.jetbrains.com/clion/2015/07/infographics-cpp-facts-before-clion/
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio