Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello. On 01/02/17 14:42, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Stefan Schmidt > wrote: >> Hello. >> >> On 01/02/17 12:20, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> There was a problem with libjpeg detection, this should be

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On 01/02/17 12:20, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: >> Hello, >> >> There was a problem with libjpeg detection, this should be fixed now, >> can you test again? > > I had to remove another direct

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello. On 01/02/17 12:51, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Feb 1, 2017 9:03 AM, "Stefan Schmidt" wrote: > > Hello. > > On 24/01/17 03:47, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:07:19 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri >>

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello. On 01/02/17 12:20, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: > Hello, > > There was a problem with libjpeg detection, this should be fixed now, > can you test again? I had to remove another direct libjpeg dep in eet but after that cmake runs through. In the following make run it breaks

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Feb 1, 2017 9:03 AM, "Stefan Schmidt" wrote: Hello. On 24/01/17 03:47, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:07:19 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > said: > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Carsten Haitzler

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello, There was a problem with libjpeg detection, this should be fixed now, can you test again? Greetings Marcel Hollerbach On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:56:10AM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On 20/01/17 00:17, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Marcel Hollerbach

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello. On 24/01/17 03:47, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:07:19 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > said: > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Carsten Haitzler >> wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:39:46 +1030 Simon Lees

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello. On 20/01/17 00:17, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > Hi all, > > Marcel Hollerbach did a nice work and started a branch devs/bu5hm4n/cmake-port > > After some review, I shared my experience with CMake and did a > complement trying to simplify it: devs/barbieri/cmake >

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello. On 25/01/17 11:26, Simon Lees wrote: > > > On 01/25/2017 08:40 PM, Andrii Kroitor wrote: >> Hello >> >> I'm very excited to see steps towards CMake :) >> Is there any reason to limit minimum version to 3.7? Current unbuntu >> release has cmake version 3.5.1 included. >> Looks like with 3.5

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

There was segfault on [ 88%] Generating src/lib/eo/efl_object.eo.c, src/lib/eo/efl_object.eo.h I think autotools-generated files somehow interfere with cmake build, but this doesn't matter. After git clean build works fine(eina, eolian, eo, test). On 25.01.17 12:22,

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On 01/25/2017 08:40 PM, Andrii Kroitor wrote: > Hello > > I'm very excited to see steps towards CMake :) > Is there any reason to limit minimum version to 3.7? Current unbuntu > release has cmake version 3.5.1 included. > Looks like with 3.5 cmake step passes ok, but build fails on eo files >

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello, i am sorry for the wrong minum-version number. I think 3.0.2 is enough, since we are using LINK_PRIVATE and LINK_PUBLIC. What error messages are you getting? Greetings bu5hm4n On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:10:38PM +0200, Andrii Kroitor wrote: > Hello > > I'm very excited to see steps

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hello I'm very excited to see steps towards CMake :) Is there any reason to limit minimum version to 3.7? Current unbuntu release has cmake version 3.5.1 included. Looks like with 3.5 cmake step passes ok, but build fails on eo files generation. I'm wondering if it is because of some missing

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:07:19 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri said: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:39:46 +1030 Simon Lees said: > > > >> > >> > >> On 01/24/2017 10:16 AM, Carsten

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:39:46 +1030 Simon Lees said: > >> >> >> On 01/24/2017 10:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >> > On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:50:04 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri >> >

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:39:46 +1030 Simon Lees said: > > > On 01/24/2017 10:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:50:04 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > > said: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Just merged the branch Marcel and

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On 01/24/2017 10:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:50:04 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > said: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just merged the branch Marcel and I were working (actually we couldn't >> share a branch since we cannot push to other

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:38:44 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri said: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 09:45:04 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > > said: > > > >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:50:04 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri said: > Hi all, > > Just merged the branch Marcel and I were working (actually we couldn't > share a branch since we cannot push to other developer's branch and we > cannot create a shared one). > > We'll work in

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Hi all, Just merged the branch Marcel and I were working (actually we couldn't share a branch since we cannot push to other developer's branch and we cannot create a shared one). We'll work in tree, so we avoid conflicts as we do renames and change the #defines. See TODO-cmake.txt on how you

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 09:45:04 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > said: > >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Carsten Haitzler >> wrote: [...] >> > i7 desktop: (autogen)

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 09:45:04 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri said: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Carsten Haitzler > wrote: [...] > > i7 desktop: (autogen)(make) (eina_cpu.c) (eina_cpu.h) () > > autotools: 27.802 4.3060.571

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote: [...] > i7 desktop: (autogen)(make) (eina_cpu.c) (eina_cpu.h) () > autotools: 27.802 4.3060.5711.234 0.097 > cmake ninja:1.283 2.2780.1600.636 0.014 > cmake

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:20:17 + Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri said: on the below. 1. i like the idea of 1 dir == 1 target (1 binary, 1 .so, etc.). it simplifies things. soi agree that a general move to this style of tree simplifies buid too. i like. 2. i actually fixed up the

Re: [E-devel] cmake attempt

Updated with one target per directory simplifications, euna_btlog and eina_modinfo are examples of that, and as they are single file sources they need no CMakeLists.txt, these are guessed in such cases. Instead of filling specific .pc.in templates, it now generate files based on library

[E-devel] cmake attempt

Hi all, Marcel Hollerbach did a nice work and started a branch devs/bu5hm4n/cmake-port After some review, I shared my experience with CMake and did a complement trying to simplify it: devs/barbieri/cmake (https://git.enlightenment.org/core/efl.git/log/?h=devs/barbieri/cmake) As you can see,