Re: [libcvd-members] CMake vs autotools

[Edward Rosten]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Georg Klein wrote:

> Would anyone object massively if I add cmake scripts to TooN

That shouldn't be needed, since there's nothing to be built. Currently 
it's just a stub so that ./configure --prefix works along with make 
install.


> /CVD/gvars? It's 
> an alternative to autotools, and is (IMO) much better.

Converting CVD could be quite a big job, due to the number of tests it 
requires and the number of platforms it supports.

By the way, how is it better?

> I think the two should be able to coexist.

It should be. Feel free. A point to note:

The dependency logic is encoded in the script on line 842. The format of 
this is documented in the comments above.  You'll need to reencode this 
somehow in cmake, in order to build correctly. This should be somewhat 
easier than it was before, since this has replaced the evil mess of 
conditionals spread over the makefile, the autoconf script and the C++ 
source. There are similar scripts further on which use the same kind of 
dependency resoltion to determine which executables get built as well.


-Ed