Am Samstag, 4. Juni 2016 um 09:55:10, schrieb Georg Baum <georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de> > Richard Heck wrote: > > > On 06/03/2016 04:28 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:38:09PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > >>> Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2016 um 12:42:33, schrieb Richard Heck > >>> <rgh...@lyx.org> > >>>> I guess maybe there is a question worth discussing here about how many > >>>> of us understand cmake well enough to modify the build scripts when > >>>> that needs doing. My sense is that the answer is "one", > >> I also think this is and important question. > >> > >>> In alphabetical order: > >>> Georg > >>> Peter > >>> Scott > >>> Vincent > >> I do not know CMake well. I suppose I do know enough to make minor > >> modifications. I've been learning from Kornel and would put more effort > >> into it if we did decide to move to CMake for our official builds. But > >> the point remains that at least in the short-run I think we would depend > >> a lot on one or two developers that have a lot of CMake experience. > > > > It may be then that things are better than it seemed. But Vincent isn't > > really active nowadays, and I'd like to hear from Georg. From what I've > > seen on the list, he hasn't always seemed completely comfortable, > > either, though it's true he does post some patches to the cmake stuff, > > and of course he can learn. > > I do not really understand cmake. I am able to do very simple modifications > which are basically copy-paste, but I tried several times to understand the > cmake language and always failed. Each time I needed a non-trivial change I > had to ask Kornel. > > However, this is not so important. With autotools we have only very few > people who understand the macro stuff in m4/, config/ and configure.ac, but > everybody is able to do his modifications to the various Makefile.am. I am > pretty sure that cmake can be setup in a similar way, so that we have the > complicated parts that need expert knowledge and are not changed often, and > the easy ones that can be changed by everybody.
Sort of. The comparable ones are m4 macros and macros in the
development/cmake/modules directory.
But I do not see cmake-analogy to Makefile.am files.
> We cannot afford having two build systems, this is a waste of time. So for
> me the question is not about the official build system, but about the only
> one, and since autotools cannot generate MSVC files the only solution is to
> use cmake (I know none widely used build wystem that is better than cmake).
>
>
> IIRC the known show stoppers for making cmake the default build system are
> some missing features when building the release packages, and the GLOB
> stuff.
I use GLOB mainly because it was so easy to get the list of files. Sure they
can be created manually too.
> I would suggest to make a comparison table of build system features
> in the wiki, and everybody adds the ones he needs. Then we can see which
> build system supports which feature, and how much work it would be to
> implement the mising ones in cmake.
+1
> One thing I noticed recently is the
> version suffix: Which autotools you can use an arbitrary one, with cmake you
> can only toggle between a predefined one or none at all, which is a problem
> if you want to compare two different builds of the same version with
> separate configurations (e.g. qt4/qt5 or different compiler settings).
I never had problems with this. Each build with different settings can have its
own build-dir,
so the comparison is trivial. I am doing it this way.
So for example my build dir for lyx using gcc5.3 with qt5.6 is
'/usr/BUILD/BuildLyxGitQt5.6main-gcc5.3'
We don't need to install first.
But it is also easy to change the boolean selecting suffix to be a string.
>
> Georg
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
