Re: Telling libtool/automake to be less anal
Hi all! On Wednesday 24 September 2008, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Ghiora Drori wrote: > > Having Used cmake (I have no association with them) I found it much > > easier to handle build systems with the cmake. > > then with the autotool chain which I did get to meddle with quite a > > bit in the past. > > Have a nice day. > > You know, after so much marketing speech one would expect to have some > sort of actual content. You have said NOTHING about why cmake is better. Well, since someone introduced CMake here (despite http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/web/use-qmail-instead/ ), and we're discussing it versus GNU Autotools - here is why I like and prefer CMake. For this refer to these Hackers-IL messages: * http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/4979 * http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/4983 > > From past experience with cmake, I can give you one major con for cmake > - it requires anyone who wants to build the project to install cmake. > With the auto tools, I (the developer) need to have autoconf, automake > and aclocal* but the end user only needs "make", the actual compiler and > a bourne shell processor. I don't see that as an advantage. With Autohell, I need to download the generated (and bloated) sh, makefile.in's, etc. times and again for every package that I download. With CMake, on the other hand, they are not included in the package, and so the package is smaller, and I only need to download and install the CMake functionality once. > Furthermore, if all the end user has is a > bourne shell script processor, and I have done my job well (which takes > no more than running "autoscan" every once in a while), then the user > will get a complete list of the fact she is missing a > compiler/make/library when she runs ./configure. This is also the case with CMake after you run "cmake ." > > * If I am going to be using libtool then the end user does need libtool > as well. However, what I said about missing compiler applies to libtool > as well. > > With cmake, the user gets a source package that does not have a simple > makefile on one hand, yet does not have the standard ./configure on the > other. I need to trust the user to install cmake in order to build my > project. Now, if I'm compiling a huge project such as KDE, that may not > be that big of an issue. Huge projects have the right to demand stuff > installed on the system before they can do their stuff. If, however, all > I need is a bunch of files with a simple build environment, then cmake > is too onerous a demand to make from my users. I don't understand why. Regards, Shlomi Fish - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Best Introductory Programming Language - http://xrl.us/bjn84 Shlomi, so what are you working on? Working on a new wiki about unit testing fortunes in freecell? -- Ran Eilam = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Telling libtool/automake to be less anal
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:54:34AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Ghiora Drori wrote: >> Use cmake. It is much better then the gnu tool builder stuff. And it >> is free. > 2. How does cmake handle this problem differently? I'll note that with all of your cmake advocacy, you still haven't answered Shachar's original question (which Oron did, for autotools). -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Job offer] Embedded programmer
Hi all, A startup located at Rehovot is looking for a programmer with the following spec: - Software Engineer - Excellent knowledge in C/C++ including STL and OOD. - Professional background in machine developing and/or Imaging. - Excellent knowledge in multi-threading. - At least 5 years of experience in the industry. Preference for former experience at companies such as Indigo, Applied, Scitex (Kodak), Orbotech, Nur. - Preference for experience in one or more of the following fields: Python, GUI development with QT, Linux development, Micro controllers, Drivers development, Image processing, parallel programming and optimization. - Teamwork abilities. - Good English. Let me know if you're interested. Shana Tova, Dotan = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Telling libtool/automake to be less anal
Hi, This is the beginning of Shachar's posting: Quote ( bold mine): Libtool is a* great tool*, and it fits nicely with automake and autoconf, making it extremely simple to just take a new project, write a few (less than 10) lines to instructions, and get a project that already builds static and shared libraries, including support for cross build, out of tree builds, make install/uninstall, strip and even packaging the sources into a distribution tar ball. Just great. I happen to disagree and I can say so even if any of you do not like it. This does not mean I have to fix Shachar's problem or even look at at it, If you are looking for a fight I am not interested. Ghiora On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:54:34AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > > Ghiora Drori wrote: > > >> Use cmake. It is much better then the gnu tool builder stuff. And it > >> is free. > > > 2. How does cmake handle this problem differently? > > I'll note that with all of your cmake advocacy, you still haven't > answered Shachar's original question (which Oron did, for autotools). > > -- > Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is > http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's > [EMAIL PROTECTED] || best > ICQ# 16849754 || friend > > = > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Constant change is here to stay!
Re: Telling libtool/automake to be less anal
Ghiora Drori wrote: I happen to disagree and I can say so even if any of you do not like it. This does not mean I have to fix Shachar's problem or even look at at it, If you are looking for a fight I am not interested. The thing to take to heart is that if you are looking to convert anyone (and it certainly seemed that way), then you picked the wrong way to do so. In other words, you have the right to disagree, and to say so, but it is not likely to be effective unless you back it up with something more substantial than "KDE switched". I believe that what Tzafrir was looking for, and I know that what I was looking for, is a reason to find out about a new technology that we were not aware of that would make our lives better. You may, of course, wish to view that as "picking up a fight", but I don't think that would be a fair characteristic. Unfortunately, I did not feel you supplied such a reason. Thanks, Shachar = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
