Cmake sounds very promising. I would certainly think it merits a discussion of usefulness.
The major barrier I'd say is that it would require us to do a forklift replacement of the existing gmake Makefile build system. That is, it is unlikely that an incremental replacement of the gmake system could happen. However, I would love to be proved wrong. A proof-of-concept by someone on one of the major subsystems would likely be a first step here. Just to remind everyone, we currently would need something that can provide a reasonable build system to work on the following OS and compiler combinations: Linux 2.4 & 2.6 (both 32- and 64-bit) with GCC 3.2 and later Windows 2000 & Windows 2003 x64 with Visual Studio 2003 Windows XP & Windows 2003 with Visual Studio 2010 Solaris 8 with SunStudio 11 Solaris 10 (32- and 64-bit, SPARC and x64) with SunStudio 11 and 12 Plus, be adaptable to other platforms, such as MacOS 10.5 with its compiler (gcc 3.??), Linux on PPC & ARM, AIX on POWER, HPUX on PA-RISC or Itanium, Windows 2008 or Win7 with VisualStudio, etc. -Erik On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 21:09 +0200, Julien Ponge wrote: > Hi, > > > Did you consider using a tool like cmake to manage the build? > > > Cheers > > On 25 avr. 2011, at 12:46, Erik Trimble <erik.trim...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 4/24/2011 10:12 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: > > > > > > FYI... > > > > > > > > > I sent this, but I'm not seeing any record it was received... :^( > > > > > > > > > -kto > > > > > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > > From: Kelly O'Hair <kelly.oh...@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > Date: April 22, 2011 16:49:29 PM PDT > > > > > > > > To: annou...@openjdk.java.net > > > > > > > > Subject: Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes > > > > > > > > Reply-To: disc...@openjdk.java.net > > > > > > > > > > > > Project Proposal: Build Infrastructure Changes > > > > In accordance with the OpenJDK guidelines for projects [1], I hereby > > > > propose the OpenJDK Project "Build Infrastructure Changes". > > > > This Project will be used for developing major changes to the JDK build > > > > process. > > > > A list of some of the goals include: > > > > * Drastically improving the turnaround on full builds > > > > * Provide a reliable way for incremental builds to work > > > > * Simplify the makefiles drastically avoiding unnecessary nested makes > > > > * Allow for parallel building with make -j > > > > * Allow for 32bit builds to happen on 64bit systems > > > > * Allow for use of more portable build tools (compilers etc.) where > > > > possible > > > > This work will be done in a separate set of repositories. > > > > I propose this project be sponsored by the Build Group [2] and that I > > > > be the initial moderator of the project. > > > > > > > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ > > > > [2] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/build/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As one of the major people impacted by this, I give it a very big > > +1. > > > > YES. > > > > > > I'd also like to add that an additional goal could be: > > > > * full documentation of the design (as well as the process) of the > > build > > > > > > It would be a good idea to get this done as one of the first things, > > that way, it makes it easier to attract new forks. Right now, the > > barrier to help is quite high. > > > > > > -- > > Erik Trimble > > Java System Support > > Mailstop: usca22-123 > > Phone: x17195 > > Santa Clara, CA -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-317 Phone: x67195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)
