On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 07:59:45PM +0300, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On 2/3/07, Aaron Spike wrote:
- gnu auto* (what is the proper name?)
- Bob's buildtool
- Scons
- CMake
People interested in finding and evaluating a new build system:
- Aaron Spike
+1 :)
I know nothing about Bob's buildtool. CMake seems to eventually become mainstream for desktop applications these days (KDE4, Scribus etc.)
I think it would be great to see the following build system problems solved:
* Changing a header file invariably results in a nigh-complete rebuild of the whole tree * Having to update the version number in 7+ different files each time we increment a build * There are way too many packaging scripts in the root inkscape directory. Better if these were either unneeded, included in the makefile, or placed in a subdirectory. * Adding/changing configuration options or new libs is a bit cumbersome * Installing to locations other than /usr sometimes does not work (inkscape not finding its share dir, etc. etc.)
If cmake can help address some of these issues, it could be a very good thing.
One thing to consider when changing build systems is the potential of the new system to pose a hurdle for new developers. If people get stuck just figuring out how to get the build system working, that may be enough to scare them away from getting more further involved. On the other hand, if the build system is easy to run, well documented, and works very reliably, it could be a very good thing. Autotools has the advantage of being a common denominator, and cmake starts at a disadvantage because it is not yet super widespread. However, if it can greatly simplify tasks that new developers will want to do, compared with autotools, then it could easily come out way ahead.
Bryce