Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

For what it's worth, what I've done here is to create binary packages of each third-party library for each supported platform (i.e. .deb packages for Ubuntu, .rpm packages for RHEL/CentOS, Chocolatey packages for Windows). Except for cases where the system already provided sufficient versions

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

On 13-Aug-16 03:12, Elizabeth A. Fischer wrote: I don't think CMake is the best place to do it, for a number of reasons. I would not try to re-invent the wheel here. Can you provide any details? I personally think that CMake is a natural and the only place where it should be done. On

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

Hi, I was looking at tools that can do this kind of things myself (however I was more looking at pre-built binaries redistribution than at a super-build, since our build time is already quite long). Does Conan (https://conan.io/) not fit your bill as well ? Best Le dim. 14 août 2016 à 02:33,

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: > You can simplify this to two steps: > > 1. Clone the superbuild repository > 2. Build the third-party and first-party packages > > This is the approach we take with the OME super-build >

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM Elizabeth A. Fischer < elizabeth.fisc...@columbia.edu> wrote: > I would look into Anaconda, which does work for Windows. Its version > management is not as well developed as Spack, but it's more cross-platform. > > Auto-builders are just coming into their own,

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

Wow I actually completely forgot about that lol. I think I was looking into it for some other reasons, not related to work. I will have to look into it again. I don't really remember much about it. Thanks for the reminder. On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Ruslan Baratov

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

Hi, Robert According to your GitHub account you've send a trivial patch about a year ago to the Hunter (https://github.com/ruslo/hunter) package manager. So I wonder what is your experience, have you tried it? Have you run into some troubles? Thanks, Ruslo On 12-Aug-16 22:59, Robert Dailey

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

I would look into Anaconda, which does work for Windows. Its version management is not as well developed as Spack, but it's more cross-platform. Auto-builders are just coming into their own, it's a brave new world. I expect things to be more complete in a few years. -- Elizabeth On Sat, Aug

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

I would look into Anaconda, which does work for Windows. Its version management is not as well developed as Spack, but it's more cross-platform. Auto-builders are just coming into their own, it's a brave new world. I expect things to be more complete in a few years. -- Elizabeth On Sat, Aug

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

I did some brief digging into spack, and it doesn't look like it supports Windows. All I see are shell scripts and the documentation uses POSIX. If I'm going to use a package manager, it needs to be able to support Android (ARM), Windows, and Linux. I have specific toolchains that I'll need the

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

I did some brief digging into spack, and it doesn't look like it supports Windows. All I see are shell scripts and the documentation uses POSIX. If I'm going to use a package manager, it needs to be able to support Android (ARM), Windows, and Linux. I have specific toolchains that I'll need the

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

> > This is what Spack and other meta builders do. I don't think CMake is the > best place to do it, for a number of reasons. I would not try to re-invent > the wheel here. > See http://github. com/llnl/spack > -- Elizabeth -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and

Re: [cmake-developers] [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

> > This is what Spack and other meta builders do. I don't think CMake is the > best place to do it, for a number of reasons. I would not try to re-invent > the wheel here. > See http://github. com/llnl/spack > -- Elizabeth -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

On 12/08/2016 19:59, Robert Dailey wrote: Hello, I've been thinking of a different approach for a while. I've done some toying around with the "Super Build" concept, where I have a separate CMake project that does nothing but use the ExternalProject module to build libraries in real time

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

This is what Spack and other meta builders do. See http://github. com/llnl/spack On Aug 12, 2016 3:59 PM, "Robert Dailey" wrote: > Hello, > > There is an internal C++ product at the company I work for which I > have written a series of CMake scripts for. This project

Re: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

Subject: [CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management Hello, There is an internal C++ product at the company I work for which I have written a series of CMake scripts for. This project actually has dependencies on several open source libraries, such as boost, freetype, openssl

[CMake] Need ideas/opinions on third party library management

Hello, There is an internal C++ product at the company I work for which I have written a series of CMake scripts for. This project actually has dependencies on several open source libraries, such as boost, freetype, openssl, etc. Right now what we do is build each of these third party libraries