Re: [Chicken-users] CMake tarballs

[Toby Butzon]

I've come close to responding to this notion that we're headed for CMake
being "the" way to build Chicken, and I've chosen to keep my mouth shut.
But it seems like we're moving in that direction simply because there
isn't much resistance. So, I'll go on and make it clear that there is.

On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
> >Brandon J. Van Every scripsit:
> >>I'm not keen on naming the build in a way that looks "unofficial" or 
> >>"special" or "different."  As in, "what the hell is this -cmake- 
> >>thing??"  I want people to just use the build.

It *is* special, different, and unofficial. I agree with John -- 2.41c
looks like a version number. Even chicken-c-2.41 is too cryptic for me.
I'd rather have it be clear -- chicken-cmake-2.41.

On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Well why don't I name it 
> chicken-dont-use-this-its-unofficial-2.41.tar.gz then?  I'm not 
> interested in an unappetizing name, if such names there be.  It will 
> never become official if it is not consumed.

If you're rather use chicken-dont-use-this-its-unofficial, go right
ahead. ;)

I, for one, am not interested in making Chicken even more obscure by
requiring an obscure build tool. On *every* platform except non-Cygwin,
non-MSYS, straight Windows, autotools does the job just fine.

IMHO, one platform -- for which two viable workarounds exist -- should not
drive a shift that will require everyone else -- those that *have* been
able to build up to this point, just by typing ./configure; make; make
install -- to go out and get some newfangled "installer" for the same job.

CMake isn't even a "usual" solution for Windows. Creating a CMake
build isn't going to make Chicken internals development on Windows any
less obscure. (For most people, just having a Windows binary would be
plenty. They couldn't care less if it was built on mingw.) If I had to
run chicken on windows, I certainly wouldn't be itching to build it from
scratch. There isn't even a C compiler on a Windows machine, by
default... How is that sane?

> John Cowan wrote:
> >And of course it
> >relies on the user already having cmake or being willing to install
> >it.

Exactly. Why would I want to install CMake so I can build on a system
that actually allows me to have a real build environment.  Autotools by
design doesn't have to be installed... it generates a shell script and
makefiles that work anywhere with a reasonable development environment.

> Testily, I say, so what?  It also relies on people having a friggin' C 
> compiler, a minimum level of technical literacy, and probably other things.

No need to be snippy. Yes, it requires a C compiler, which every system
EXCEPT Windows ships with already installed. On Unix, requiring CMake,
which isn't a usual addition, would be more work. Increasing the work on
Unix to decrease the work necessary on a system that doesn't come with a
C compiler just sounds backwards. Hey, we could probably compile it on
the N64... let's make the Unix process harder so N64 takes a step or
two less.

I'll grant that having Windows binaries is important. But building from
scratch?  ...not so much.

> It only relies on people having a Unix shell.  Convenient, but it sure 
> makes people lazy.

I don't see how having a Unix shell makes me lazy. Because I can install
Chicken with a simple ./configure; make; make install? Do you whip
yourself every time you install a program with an InstallShield wizard,
for being so lazy?

So there it is. Is it lamentable that the build process on Windows isn't
*easy*? Yes. Is it Chicken's fault? No. Would it be a showstopper for
Chicken to be used or even be popular on Windows? No. Windows people
tend to be perfectly happy without compiling things in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. Having a CMake build can be nothing but an asset.
But pushing so hard for it to be the official way to build is too much.
It's fine if you want to support it... I hope lots of people find it
useful, and I hope it gives you satisfaction to contribute. Just try not
to be too heavy handed about it... chucking autotools would not be a
good move.

-- 
Toby Butzon