Hi Gregg, On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote: > And now for something completely different: a (mostly) working Bazel build > for iotivity 1.3.0. If you want to play along, see > > https://github.com/OpenOCF/iochibity/tree/bazel > > Warning: this is very much a proof-of-concept hacking project. I've learned > bazel as I went along, so the current design is undoubtedly not the best. > But it seems to build, at least on OS X (and somewhat on windows, I've yet > to pull the OS X fixes into the windows build) > > I've also reorganized the source tree at will. This is for the C kernel > only, no C++. I've begun experimenting with some refactoring so you may see > some weirdness. But once you learn a bit of bazel, the BUILD files should > be very readable. > > Also, I'm using autotools for configuration. Works great, I don't know of > anything better anyway. > > First impression: Bazel is far, far better than scons. Of course, there is > a learning curve - took me about a week to get the hang of it. But in the > end I like it a lot more than Scons.
I'm still trying to understand, what is so wrong with CMake that both IoTivity and AllJoyn are using Scons? I'm coming from Buildroot Embedded Linux distro and the wast majority of packages is either autoconf or CMake. Buildroot provides a convenient "abstraction" layer for CMake, so that usually you don't need to tweak anything but selecting/disabling package specific options (-DOPTION=ON etc.) in order to get your package built. There are only about 4 packages using Scons. So no infrastructure is provided and the recipes have to supply all cross-compiling options etc. And I found no Bazel based package. I suppose the same situation you have in other embedded Linux distros like Yocto, OpenWrt/LEDE. So offence, just wondering. Regards, Yegor _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
