headers
Stefan Seefeld | 6 May 2008 14:54

Re: Announce: Synopsis 0.10 released

Markus Elfring wrote:
> 
>> Though, needless to say, I'd appreciate *any* feedback / help / 
>> collaboration, no matter what aspect you are most interested in.
>>   
> 
> Would you like to support a more active discussion on class design details?
> How do you think about to use UML for precise communication of relevant 
> refactorings?

I'm open and supportive to all interest and discussion Synopsis may 
induce. By all means, please send your concerns.

The ones that are most likely to get picked up (by me or any other 
interested person) are certainly those with specific, achievable, and 
tangible benefits (e.g. correctness, improvements on user interface, 
performance, compatibility with other tools, ...).
It's best to start by pointing out the problem that you'd like to 
address, then lay out the your idea / design by which you think it can / 
should be solved. For small issues it may even be possible to attach a 
patch.
By all means, use whatever language / tool you feel most comfortable 
with to communicate.

Thanks,
		Stefan

--

-- 

       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Genest | 16 May 2008 16:06
Picon

CMake

Hi,

I would like to know if the support for windows could be achieved by the adoption of cmake as a replacement make and associated programs. I think that using a builder that abstracts away the platforms would be helpful in supporting those platforms. I would be able to work on this modification as part of my task to verify the windows build.

Would there be interest in this change for synopsis ?

D.

_______________________________________________
Synopsis-devel mailing list
Synopsis-devel <at> lists.fresco.org
http://lists.fresco.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/synopsis-devel
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Stefan Seefeld | 16 May 2008 16:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: CMake

Hi David,

David Genest wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if the support for windows could be achieved by 
> the adoption of cmake as a replacement make and associated programs. I 
> think that using a builder that abstracts away the platforms would be 
> helpful in supporting those platforms. I would be able to work on this 
> modification as part of my task to verify the windows build.
>

As far as I understand, CMake is itself a wrapper that delegates to 
platform-specific build tools. Am I correct ?
How would it manage a Windows build ? What tools would it use there ?

I still believe it to be possible to adapt the current GNU-make based 
system to build using a VC++ toolchain (something I have done for other 
projects in the past successfully).

I'm somewhat reluctant towards CMake, as it doesn't actually replace 
'make', but rather, abstract it. Thus, our hybrid build system would 
become even more complex than it already is. But I'm open to be proven 
wrong. :-)

Thanks,

       Stefan

PS: As usual, I'm online at irc://irc.oftc.net/synopsis...

--

-- 

      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Genest | 16 May 2008 18:14
Picon

Re: CMake

Stefan,

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld <at> sympatico.ca> wrote:

As far as I understand, CMake is itself a wrapper that delegates to
platform-specific build tools. Am I correct ?
How would it manage a Windows build ? What tools would it use there ?

I want to delve more into CMake, but yes, it is a kind of driver for the platform's build system (be it make-gcc, msdev on windows, cygwin, borland, eclipse, etc). You write once the auto-tools like scripts and all platforms are supported. This is where the power lies. There is no need to maintain autoconf files because CMake takes care of it.

I still believe it to be possible to adapt the current GNU-make based
system to build using a VC++ toolchain (something I have done for other
projects in the past successfully).
 
I know also that this is feasable, but the changes must occur inside make scripts which are friendlyer to UNIX environments. The maintaining of the different build types must occur inside make files and autoconf files. With the use of CMake, the maintenance is carried over to the CMakeLists.txt, for all platforms.

I'm somewhat reluctant towards CMake, as it doesn't actually replace
'make', but rather, abstract it. Thus, our hybrid build system would
become even more complex than it already is. But I'm open to be proven
wrong. :-)

The abstraction gives you more power on other platforms. CMake can manage tool discovery. IN fact, it replaces the automake + libtool + autoconf combination. I think in the end that it is a simplifying change.
 
Let me try and prove it to you... I have been told by a few people that CMake eliminates all the complexities involved in the autotools suite. I am very interested in learning CMake. One of the added benefits is that it can generate project files automatically, for the IDE loving developpers out there (that includes me :-).

I will try porting the synopsis build system and give you feedback on my progress.

D.
_______________________________________________
Synopsis-devel mailing list
Synopsis-devel <at> lists.fresco.org
http://lists.fresco.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/synopsis-devel
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane