On 12/9/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 12:48 PM, Alex Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/8/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This patch set adds initial autoconf support for Mesa. Previous
> > > discussion was that full autotools was not desired. This approach is
> >
> > Is switching *to* autotools now not a bit late ?
> > I mean lots of projects are switching away from it now.
> > In case anybody is interested, I could assist with adding a cmake-based
> > build system to mesa.
>
> Well, it's not my call, but I'll just throw out my opinion.
>
> First, some projects might be exploring different build systems, but
> still roughly 75% of the projects I've built use some form of
> autoconf/automake/libtool. So, it's hardly crazy to suggest using
> autoconf right now. Also, mesa is practically a sister project to
> Xorg, which is fully autotooled. So, you can leverage all that
That's a good point.
experience onto mesa. If you switch to another system like cmake or
> waf, then mesa is still off on its own like it is now.
>
> Second, while a cmake system or even a full autotooling would require
> a major overhaul of the source tree,
I don't think so.
Files named "CMakeLists.txt" would be added in several (maybe all) subdirs.
They can coexist with the files for other buildsystems.
this approach is completely
> non-invasive. You can continue to build mesa the exact same way if you
> prefer. It's just an extra script to generate configuration for you.
>
> Third, autoconf requires no additional components than what's already
> required to build mesa (from the tarball, anyway). So, you could start
> using the configure script immediately without changing the
> requirements at all. Definitely can't say that about cmake.
Autotools require a UNIX-like OS (shell etc.), cmake has no additional
requirments except that cmake is installed on the system (you need a C++
compiler to build cmake if there is no packaged version available. Most
Linux distros and BDSs have cmake packages, binary packages for OSX,
Solaris, AIX and HP-UX are available from the cmake site).
About convenience libs: they are not required.
We had a lot of them in KDE 1..3, and we can live without them without
problems in KDE4. Compilations just takes a bit longer. I had the impression
that building mesa doesn't take long on a recent machine (compared e.g. to
kdelibs), so maybe the multiple compilation wouldn't actually add a lot of
time (like > 1 min) to the build.
Maybe the most important is that autoconf is really mature, well
> understood and supports tons of platforms. People will know how to
> work with it because it's used everywhere.
I think we could discuss that without end ;-)
Just IMHO:
cmake >= 2.4.3 is mature (it builds e.g. ParaView, KDE4, cdrkit, OpenWengo,
...)
it supports tons of platforms
although autotools are used everywhere they are not well understood
everywhere
cmake is easier to understand (just one tool instead of
automake+autoconf+libtool+m4+shell, ok, here we are talking just about
autoconf...)
Anyway, I just wanted to say that if somebody is interested I would happiliy
assist.
Alex
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Mesa3d-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
