Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] an example of a gnuradio project using cmake

[Gaetano Mendola]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Michael Dickens <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Tom Rondeau wrote:
>> The biggest problem that I see with cmake is that the burden of proof
>> lies with cmake.
>
> I'm 100% confident that CMake, or QMake for that matter (and, I'm sure, BJam 
> and other build tools), could handle the GNU Radio build system robustly if 
> someone were willing to put the time and effort into those changes.  All of 
> these build systems are roughly equivalent in the way they go about 
> accomplishing their task -- except, I think, in one important way: GNU 
> Autotools allows the user to insert shell script that is directly executed 
> during configure, while CMake and QMake build scripts are entirely 
> interpreted and hence rely upon the interpreter and documentation of its 
> behavior being correct.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  Yes, I know 
> that "shell script" is interpreted, but here I make the distinction between 
> interpreted by the shell many of us use on a daily basis for many tasks 
> versus interpreted just for the purposes of, and by, this particular build 
> system -- does that make sense?
>
> Either way: Each build tool has benefits and drawbacks; none is perfect for 
> all projects.  I'm quite sure that for GNU Radio, any build tool will have to 
> include local "hacks" (or "tricks" or whatever) to get the various 
> dependencies found and in-place.  I've worked with all 3 build systems enough 
> to know that I like each in different ways, and that all end up with 
> difficult-to-read scripts with any project of reasonable complexity in 
> dependencies and building.
>
> So, if Josh wants to go off and prove that CMake will do the trick, I say the 
> more power to him.  If Tom wants to keep using GNU Autotools, I'm good with 
> that too.  I have no desire to rewrite everything to use QMake or BJam, but I 
> could probably do so without too much difficulty.  Specifically for GNU 
> Radio, I don't see any one of these build tools being "better" than any other 
> in any significant way.
>
> My US$0.02 worth, at most ;) - MLD

We have adopted CMake over Autotools since long now, CMake is
available now on all modern distributions, it's easier to learn and
some IDE (like Kdevelop) are even aware of the  CMake syntax with
integrated help as well for each command.

My 0.02 Euro.


-- 
cpp-today.blogspot.com