Re: cmake

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015, John Spray wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: > > The work to transition to cmake has stalled somewhat. I've tried to use > > it a few times but keep running into issues that make it unusable for me. >

Re: cmake

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: > The work to transition to cmake has stalled somewhat. I've tried to use > it a few times but keep running into issues that make it unusable for me. > Not having make check is a big one, but I think the h

Re: cmake

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Sage Weil <sw...@redhat.com> wrote: > The work to transition to cmake has stalled somewhat. I've tried to use > it a few times but keep running into issues that make it unusable for me. > Not having make check is a big one, but I think the h

Re: cmake

Hi, responding to all these at once. - Original Message - > From: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" <yeh...@redhat.com> > To: "Sage Weil" <sw...@redhat.com> > Cc: "ceph-devel" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December

cmake

The work to transition to cmake has stalled somewhat. I've tried to use it a few times but keep running into issues that make it unusable for me. Not having make check is a big one, but I think the hackery required to get that going points to the underlying problem(s). I seems like the main

Re: cmake

Hi, On 16/12/2015 18:33, Sage Weil wrote: > The work to transition to cmake has stalled somewhat. I've tried to use > it a few times but keep running into issues that make it unusable for me. > Not having make check is a big one, but I think the hackery required to > get that

Re: cmake

On 16-12-2015 19:45, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: > Is cmake a viable option in all environments we expect ceph (or any > part of) to be compiled on? (e.g. aix, solaris, freebsd, different > linux arm distros, etc.) Hi, For FreeBSD it does not really matter much. Recently the native bu

Re: cmake

On 16-12-2015 20:38, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2015, Matt Benjamin wrote: >> I'm going to push for cmake work already in progress to be moved to the >> next milestone ASAP. >> >> With respect to "make check" blockers, which contains the issue of whe

Re: cmake

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 19:26:52 -0500 (EST) Matt Benjamin wrote: > Could you share the branch you are trying to build? (ceph/wip-5073 would not > appear to be it.) It's the trunk with a few of my insignificant cleanups. But I found a fix: deleting the CMakeFiles/ and

Re: cmake

t.) > > It's the trunk with a few of my insignificant cleanups. > > But I found a fix: deleting the CMakeFiles/ and CMakeCache.txt let > it run. Thanks again for the tip about the separate build directory. > FWIW, many cmake issues can be fixed by nuking the cmake generated file

Re: cmake

I always run cmake from a build directory which is not the root, usually "build" in the root, so my minimal invocation would be "mkdir build; cd build; cmake ../src"--I'd at least try that, though I wouldn't have thought build location could affect something this basic (a

Re: cmake

sorry, "cmake .." for Ceph's setup. Matt - Original Message - > From: "Matt Benjamin" <mbenja...@redhat.com> > To: "Pete Zaitcev" <zait...@redhat.com> > Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 5:30:28 PM >

Re: cmake

el.org > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 7:03:47 PM > Subject: Re: cmake > > On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:30:21 -0500 > "Adam C. Emerson" <aemer...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 03/12/2015, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > > > I'm trying to run cmake, in o

Re: cmake

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 17:30:21 -0500 "Adam C. Emerson" <aemer...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/12/2015, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > I'm trying to run cmake, in order to make sure my patches do not break it > > (in particular WIP 5073 added source files). Result looks like

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

, Orit Wasserman owass...@redhat.com wrote: 3. no vstart.sh , starting working on this too but have less progress here. At the moment in order to use vstart I copy the exe and libs to src dir. I just started playing with CMake on Friday, adding some missing cephfs bits. I was going

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

Dear Ali, my point is no longer relevant, but your reassurances is still very relevant. Thanks Owen On 08/04/2015 08:26 PM, Ali Maredia wrote: Owen, I understand your concern, and don't think any transition will be made to CMake untill all the functionality is in it and until it has been

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

Dear Ali, I am glad you are making progress. Sadly I don't yet know cmake. Please consider the systemd wip branch. It might be wise to leave autotools around a little longer, until all functionality is in the cmake. Best regards Owen On 07/30/2015 09:01 PM, Ali Maredia wrote: After

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

Owen, I understand your concern, and don't think any transition will be made to CMake untill all the functionality is in it and until it has been thoroughly vetted by the entire community to ensure a smooth transition. I pushed a branch earlier today called wip-cmake (https://github.com/ceph

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

, starting working on this too but have less progress here. At the moment in order to use vstart I copy the exe and libs to src dir. I just started playing with CMake on Friday, adding some missing cephfs bits. I was going to fix (3) as well, but I don't want to duplicate work -- do you have

Re: [michigan-eng] cmake and gitbuilder, juntos

(fyi, ceph-devel, this was irc discussion about enhancing gitbuilder, a temporary blocker for cmake) (05:36:09 PM) sjusthm: sage mattbenjamin: so that means we should adapt gitbuilder to use cmake, right? (05:36:17 PM) sjusthm: in the immediate term? (05:36:23 PM) sjusthm: since we want

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Orit Wasserman owass...@redhat.com wrote: 3. no vstart.sh , starting working on this too but have less progress here. At the moment in order to use vstart I copy the exe and libs to src dir. I just started playing with CMake on Friday, adding some missing

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 15:01 -0400, Ali Maredia wrote: After discussing with several other Ceph developers and Sage, I wanted to start a discussion about making CMake the primary build system for Ceph. CMake works just fine as it is (make -j4 on master with CMake builds 350% faster than

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

On 07/30/2015 01:01 PM, Ali Maredia wrote: - Creating CMake targets that build packages (such as for rpm or debian) There was some discussion on the list a while back about how we don't really need to go through the full autoconf + ./configure + make rpm routine simply to generate packages

Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

After discussing with several other Ceph developers and Sage, I wanted to start a discussion about making CMake the primary build system for Ceph. CMake works just fine as it is (make -j4 on master with CMake builds 350% faster than autotools!), but there's more work needed to make

Re: Transitioning Ceph from Autotools to CMake

Just here to provide moral support. Go CMake go! :) Mark On 07/30/2015 02:01 PM, Ali Maredia wrote: After discussing with several other Ceph developers and Sage, I wanted to start a discussion about making CMake the primary build system for Ceph. CMake works just fine as it is (make -j4

Ceph Build Using CMake Update

Ceph Community, Last November I presented a speed up of Ceph's build by switching from autotools to CMake. I have been able to build core ceph components and just updated my work. One problem I noticed in testing is that when the fastcgi and/or curl development libraries are not present

CMake blueprint

Hi Ilya, Regarding the CMake blueprint at http://wiki.ceph.com/Planning/Blueprints/Giant/CMake, we at The Linux Box are excited to see more interest! I know that we've made several improvements to the CMakeLists on our local branches that haven't made it to our github repository. We'll get

Re: CMake blueprint

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Casey Bodley ca...@linuxbox.com wrote: Hi Ilya, Regarding the CMake blueprint at http://wiki.ceph.com/Planning/Blueprints/Giant/CMake, we at The Linux Box are excited to see more interest! I know that we've made several improvements to the CMakeLists

Re: Building Ceph using CMake

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Ali Maredia a...@linuxbox.com wrote: Most of the speedup can be attributed to the fact that libtool is compiling both PIC and non-PIC versions of every source file. CMake just builds everything with -fPIC. We don't have an opinion on the matter, but you may

Re: Building Ceph using CMake

All, To illustrate the benefit of using CMake to build ceph I timed builds of the ceph base (a list of targets is below) on my local machine with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor that have two 2.2 GHz cores. Here are the results I got. The following are the real times building the same exact

Building Ceph using CMake

Hi all, I'm a student working on a project to make ceph build faster and to help with efforts to port ceph to other platforms using cmake. Using the cmake build, I have been able to build core ceph components in a little under 20 minutes. For in depth information on the work done so far

Re: Building Ceph using CMake

On Nov 26, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Ali Maredia a...@linuxbox.com wrote: Hi all, I'm a student working on a project to make ceph build faster and to help with efforts to port ceph to other platforms using cmake. CMake is awesome. Also, you might be interested in checking out the portability

Re: Building Ceph using CMake

We are finding the cmake build system to be a big help, the compile-link-run cylces seem much shorter. Matt - Noah Watkins noah.watk...@inktank.com wrote: On Nov 26, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Ali Maredia a...@linuxbox.com wrote: Hi all, I'm a student working on a project to make ceph