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

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

http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/mk
http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/mkfiles

> 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*.

uriel

> 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] http://hg.youterm.com/acr
> [2] http://radare.org
>
> 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] http://cmake.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 27 2010 - 06:22:48 UTC