Build system (was Re: Future of KDE Development)

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Friday 18 February 2005 16:26, Stephan Kulow wrote:
...
> As long as no-one seriously steps up and says he would document our
> extensions, I see scons extensions as better alternative. And I kind of
> like the aspect of having full power in the Makefile/SconsFile - e.g.
> compare
>
> configure.in.in:
> AM_CONDITIONAL(include_BLAH, [test -x `which blah 2>/dev/null`])
> Makefile.am
> if include_BLAH
> bin_PROGRAMS += blah_addon
> blah_addon_SOURCES = addon1.cpp
> ....
> endif
>
> with
>
> SconsFile:
> if kdeenv.findProg("blah"):
> 	kdeenv.compileAndInstallProgram("blah", "addon1.cpp",
> install=kdeenv.bindir)
>
> (I made up that syntax, I only had a very brief look at scons so far).

Here comes this in cmake:

FIND_PROGRAM(blah_PATH blah)

IF(NOT bla_PATH)
   ADD_EXECUTABLE(blah_addon addon1.cpp)
ENDIF(NOT bla_PATH)

Yes, it's upper case, but my main point is not its "beautiful" syntax, but I 
hadn't done this before, and I found out how to do this in 5 minutes from 
looking at the manpage.

Stephan, is cmake one of your options or are the only options autotools, 
unsermake and scons ?

(my personal list is 1st cmake, 2nd scons, 3rd unsermake, ....., nth autohell)

Even if kde cvs/svn will use scons, for third party apps/kdevelop apps cmake 
might be a good candidate.

Bye
Alex
-- 
Work: alexander.neundorf at jenoptik.com - http://www.jenoptik-los.de
Home: neundorf at kde.org                - http://www.kde.org
      alex at neundorf.net               - http://www.neundorf.net