[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] an example of a gnuradio project using cmake

From: Josh Blum
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] an example of a gnuradio project using cmake
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:51:19 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7

> It seems to me that a cmake-generated source base instead would require
> cmake to produce a suitable Makefile and do the build.
> Really, the cmake sources contains a quite large bootstrap script just
> in case the system doesn't have a working cmake around.
> Now, whilst this could be probably is a minor point on modern
> distributions, because I hope cmake is available as binary package, do
> you think that this could weaken the GR build system ?

Well, really its just another dependency that can be easily installed
(apt, yum, mac ports, dmg, or even windows exe (if we ever get there)).
So I would never really need to worry about it.

But since you asked, I think that not making distribution tarballs
(regardless of the build system) in favor of tar.gz'ing the source tree
would actually make things robust.

1) autotools manifests itself into the distribution tarball anyway, and
this can be a source of build problems. I believe that we had an issue
with an out of date ltmain.sh in a tarball that was causing build
problems on newer machines.


2) A build from git source would be the same as a build from a release
tarball (because we just tar.gz'd up the source tree itself). So in a
sense, it provides a build uniformity.

The advantage with CMake here, is that it does not allow you to shoot
yourself in the foot in this particular way. :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]