Re: [Chicken-users] alternate build tools

[Thomas Chust]

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
> > > extension.
> > >
> > > 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.
> [...]

Hello,

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,
Thomas