I don't think we should change from 'make' (gnumake) to 'CMake'. It was hard work, but it is functional and we are all used to it.
On 8 Dec 2010, at 13:37 , Andrew Johnson wrote:
> Hi Lewis,
>
> On Wednesday 08 December 2010 14:20:38 J. Lewis Muir wrote:
>> On 12/8/10 2:06 PM, Andrew Johnson wrote:
>>> Michael suggested replacing our build system with CMake, but he did find
>>> some issues with doing so and I don't think that's up to the job, and it
>>> was not popular in my recent survey (aside from the effort needed to
>>> train and support all of the EPICS developers out there in any new
>>> system).
>>
>> I'd be curious to know what the issues were and why you don't think it's
>> up to the job.
>
> Ok, maybe instead of "it's not up to the job" I should have said "the result
> would not be as easy for developers to configure as the current build system".
> Michael is the best person to say what the issues were, but I'm pretty sure
> that he only had it working on Linux and RTEMS. I don't know whether CMake
> runs on all our host architectures, but I'm guessing that supporting the
> Microsoft compiler on Windows might take some work; one criterion that I will
> insist on is that we not drop any major targets.
>
> You can find Michael's latest version on Launchpad, browse it here:
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mdavidsaver/epics-base/cmake/files
>
> One example about the complexity issue, the CMakeLists.txt files in his src/*
> directories do seem to be longer than their companion Makefiles. I remember
> Michael commenting about problems defining macros (routines, ?) for CMake in a
> central place, he had to copy some things into every place that needed them
> (don't know if that's been fixed since). I'm not sure if he looked at
> building support modules, he doesn't seem to build the src/makeBaseApp
> directory at all.
>
>> I'm also hoping you're careful about how much weight you give the survey
>> results. When I pointed out some of the weaknesses in the survey, you
>> agreed and noted the results wouldn't be treated too seriously. But now
>> you seem to be using the survey results as a reason for not switching to
>> CMake.
>
> I'm using the survey as an indication of how much work it might be to persuade
> the community to switch. I haven't said anything like "over my dead body,"
> but there are many things that would need to be solved before we could do so.
> The community's reaction to that question tells me that they are probably not
> frustrated by the existing build system, or if they are it's not enough to
> make them eager to find an alternative.
>
> - Andrew
> --
> If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
> scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
> refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
> which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
> will accept it even on the slightest evidence. -- Bertrand Russell
>
- References:
- src/ reorganization Davidsaver, Michael
- Re: configure/ reorganization Andrew Johnson
- Re: configure/ reorganization J. Lewis Muir
- Re: configure/ reorganization Andrew Johnson
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: configure/ reorganization Eric Norum
- Next:
RE: src/ reorganization Davidsaver, Michael
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: configure/ reorganization Eric Norum
- Next:
RE: configure/ reorganization Jeff Hill
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
<2010>
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|