Re: [dev] [OFFTOPIC] Recommended meta-build system

From: Uriel <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:22:48 +0100

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM, pancake <> wrote:
> PD: Is there any tutorial or good documentation about how to use mk?

> because
> 'make' is
> nice, but its too shell dependend and this forces the execution to fork for
> most of basic
> operations slowing down the execution and there are many other things that
> makes
> 'make' innefficient in some situations.

If any of those things are a concern, you are clearly doing things
*completely wrong*.


> But I dont know if mk will be better
> for that.
> About cmake. i never liked because its c++ and it is not everywhere (you
> have to
> explicitly install it), and that's a pain in the ass for distributing apps.
> I like to depend on
> as less things as possible.
> Another build system I tried was 'waf'[3], and I got really exhausted of
> changing the
> rule files to match the last version of waf (they changed the API many times
> (at least
> when I was using it). The good thing of waf is that its python ( i dont like
> python, but
> its everywhere) so there's no limitation on shell commands and forks, and
> the
> configure/make stages are done nicer than in make(1) or autotools (they only
> install
> files that are diffeerent in timestamp for example) resulting in a faster
> compilation
> and installation.
> Another good thing of waf is that it can be distributed with the project, so
> you dont
> need to install waf to compile the project. Only depends on python which is
> something
> you can sadly find in all current distributions :)
> [1]
> [2]
> Armando Di Cianno wrote:
>> David,
>> I worked with the people at Kitware, Inc. for a while (here in
>> beautiful upstate New York), and they wrote and maintain CMake [1].  I
>> believe KDE, IIRC, has used CMake for a while now (which is at least a
>> testament to the complexity it can handle).
>> IMHO, CMake does not have a great syntax, but it's easy to learn and
>> write.  Again, IMHO, orders of magnitude easier to understand than GNU
>> auto*tools -- although it is a bit pedantic (e.g. closing if branches
>> with the condition to match the opening).
>> However, for all its faults, it's *really* easy to use, and the
>> for-free GUIs (ncurses or multi-platforms' GUIs), are icing on the
>> cake.  The simple ncurses GUI is nice to have when reconfiguring a
>> project -- it can really speed things up.
>>> stuff like "has vsnprintf?" that configure deals with.) In addition,
>>> it'd be nice to be able to have options like "debugging", "release",
>>> "grof-compiled", etc, similar to procesor specification.
>>> It would be preferrable if all
>>> object files and executables could coexist (because it's a C++
>>> template heavy
>> CMake can do all this for you, and it works great with C and C++
>> projects (really, that's the only reason one would use it).
>> 2¢,
>> __armando
>> [1]
Received on Wed Jan 27 2010 - 06:22:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jan 27 2010 - 06:36:20 UTC