[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CMake build anyone?

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: CMake build anyone?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:04:52 +0200

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 23:34, Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> wrote:

> A CMake install is required.

Why? (Note: I'm talking only about MSDOS/Windows.)

You envision CMake as substituting the current Windows building
environment wholesale.

My idea is more like this:

- We have the configuration files in some place, like admin/setup.
They are common for all ports (Unix, GNU/Linux, NextStep, MSDOS,
Windows, etc.).
- Developers, or users with CMake, can run the tool and (re)generate
the makefiles. These makefiles get committed to the trunk/branch, and
contain dependencies which are always needed, like gcc / msvc, etc.
- Users or the tarballs or checkouts can run nt/configure.bat (or
equivalent) to create the additional setup info (for example, paths to
include files for the image libraries).

I.e, I think the easiest transition path is having CMake as a tool
*for the maintainers*, to regenerate the makefiles. It's not optimal,
and I don't doubt that switching to a CMake-only build system would be
advantageous; but it introduces a new dependency and it is perhaps too
radical a change. Instead, we can use it like the makeinfo stuff or
the Unicode data files from admin/unidata are used right now: the user
can regenerate info or uni-*.el files, but it is usually not required.

> For the time being, we can put MSDOS aside and go ahead if cmake is seen
> as convenient enough by the Windows maintainers.

As long as it is an alternative and not a replacement, it seems like a
good idea worth trying IMHO.

All this conditional on RMS, Stefan and Chong not opposing using CMake
as an alternate build system for political or technical reasons, of


reply via email to

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