1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <witchspace81@gmail.com>) id 1Qd42z-0008ST-Ne
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:32:01 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.83.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.83.47; envelope-from=witchspace81@gmail.com;
helo=mail-gw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-gw0-f47.google.com ([74.125.83.47])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Qd42y-0002PE-Ml
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:32:01 +0000
Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11so2165684gwb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 02 Jul 2011 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.8.21 with SMTP id l21mr424691ybi.186.1309627914869; Sat,
02 Jul 2011 10:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.150.15 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJNQ0su0jtaFz6abS+H24d7dqKoWkugct1yQLeVyXTgr0rkXXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJNQ0stvozeQAVFkduY7Ph5EXy8ayYwiu4T+6Oz1RwjgiDnBeA@mail.gmail.com>
<201107021050.10563.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAJNQ0svyJcob=gfWfi7YuLWTdbLokrFyDGnMFtYLRk_29r-DZw@mail.gmail.com>
<1DBB0EED-7A9C-46AC-ABE2-6214ABD3FE9A@jrbobdobbs.org>
<CAJNQ0su0jtaFz6abS+H24d7dqKoWkugct1yQLeVyXTgr0rkXXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 17:31:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJNQ0stDg7qCxb8f-KjfP7k0RyM0dpHETkf==uswOzm4DstSUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Smith <witchspace81@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd514cca75c3504a719825c
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(witchspace81[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (witchspace81[at]gmail.com)
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Qd42y-0002PE-Ml
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Reconsider build system change?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:32:01 -0000
--000e0cd514cca75c3504a719825c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Douglas Huff <dhuff@jrbobdobbs.org> wrote:
> Cmake is just as bad as autotools, just with a different syntax and more
> "buzz" behind it right this second. I don't see any advantage to it over
> autotools unless you're not familiar with either and even then I wouldn't
> really call it an advantage. It's just different.
>
So, what about native build script generation for other platforms? autotools
can only generate makefiles (with at least two intermediate code generation
steps), which is quite limited.
IMO cmake is simple and elegant compared to the autotools monster. I don't
see why it would be "just as bad". And I have quite some experience with
both systems. Autotools is a hell to debug. cmake certainly isn't perfect,
but at least it's a leap forward.
It also requires a dependency that isn't installed by default anywhere, as
> already mentioned, and is less known outside of some obscure qt/kde circles
> and so finding people who are familiar with it and are willing to maintain
> it is more difficult.
>
Yes, apart from that only obscure projects such as LLVM, Blender, and
OpenCV are using it. Nothing of any importance.
BTW for cmake there is "ccmake" which is even better than configure --help
as it offers an interactive interface for configuration.
JS
--000e0cd514cca75c3504a719825c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"im"=
>On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Douglas Huff <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:dhuff@jrbobdobbs.org" target=3D"_blank">dhuff@jrbobdobbs.org</a>=
></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Cmake is just as bad as autotools, just with a different syntax and more &q=
uot;buzz" behind it right this second. I don't see any advantage t=
o it over autotools unless you're not familiar with either and even the=
n I wouldn't really call it an advantage. It's just different.<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br>So, what about native build script generation f=
or other platforms? autotools can only generate makefiles (with at least tw=
o intermediate code generation steps), which is quite limited. <br><br>
IMO cmake is simple and elegant compared to the autotools monster. I don=
9;t see why it would be "just as bad". And I have quite some expe=
rience with both systems. Autotools is a hell to debug. cmake certainly isn=
't perfect, but at least it's a leap forward.<br>
<br></div><div class=3D"im"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:=
1ex">
It also requires a dependency that isn't installed by default anywhere,=
as already mentioned, and is less known outside of some obscure qt/kde cir=
cles and so finding people who are familiar with it and are willing to main=
tain it is more difficult.<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br>Yes, apart from that only obscure projects such=
as LLVM,=A0 Blender, and OpenCV are using it. Nothing of any importance.<b=
r><br>BTW for cmake there is "ccmake" which is even better than c=
onfigure --help as it offers an interactive interface for configuration.<br=
>
<br>JS<br><br></div></div>
</div><br>
--000e0cd514cca75c3504a719825c--
|
