Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] building with cmake

[Robert Durkacz]

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.

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/