[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] alternate build tools

From: Thomas Chust
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] alternate build tools
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:42:10 -0000
User-agent: Opera M2/8.02 (MacPPC, build 2148)

Am 05.10.2005, 02:36 Uhr, schrieb Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden>:

Thomas Chust wrote:

Am 03.10.2005, 15:47 Uhr, schrieb Patrick Brannan <address@hidden>:

1. Note that I had to name the exe chicken_d. I could easily rename it in a
later step, but the point is that CMake doesn't seem to easily support
custom file names. Files will be named for the target plus the appropriate

2. Setting source file properties is a global operation where the last set
wins. So I haven't found an easy way to combine both static and dynamic
linking. I even tried listing the source files twice and setting properties differently on each listing. The file sets seem to be global entities that
can accept only one set of properties.

However promising CMake looked to me, this doesn't sound like a terribly well designed core of the system...

Aren't you being rather premature in your pronouncement? There's probably some way to do it, it probably just requires different output directories or something. It takes time to RTFM. I think you're not paying enough attention to a more basic point: Thomas got this thing actually working with ease in a weekend. That's highly encouraging. If debug versions really do have to be called *_d, so what? If it's otherwise an easy, reliable, high quality build system, that's a good tradeoff.


I didn't want to offend anyone and I have probably posted a comment I would better have kept to myself. It's just that the part of the message I quoted really sounded like a severe limitation to me and that I would always have tried to get rid of limitations like that if I had been to design the build system.

On the other hand I perfectly agree with you that it sounds very good that the system could be brought up and building CHICKEN with little additional work.

I also didn't want to suggest that CMake would be a bad choice, just because it has some limitations -- every system has. Before making a decision which build system I actually like best in practice, I have to try them out, which I can't do thoroughly at the moment due to limited time resources.

Sorry for all the noise,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]