Build system for KDE4

Benjamin Reed rangerrick at
Tue Jun 14 13:37:24 BST 2005

> if you really want to change
> the build system for a 5+ million LOC project, first you make a case
> for it by explaining the benefits of the *new* build system, and not
> by repeating "the old system sucks" to everyone else involved,
> because that is not news.

auto* and libtool have architectural issues that basically guarantee
that any other build system in existence are faster.  MUCH faster. 
Insanely faster.  Does faster matter?  Enough to make it worth looking
into another system.  Maybe we'll switch, maybe we won't, but enough
people are unhappy with auto* that it's worth having this discussion.

A number of bits in the KDE build system make it hard and/or nearly
impossible to work sanely on platforms like Mac OS X and Windows. 
Since working on those platforms is one of the design goals of KDE 4,
investigating switching build systems makes sense there, too.

Yes, it is possible to limp along with what we have, but the current
build system actively fights Real Work getting done in a number of

Using unsermake is an acceptable answer to me, as long as we get
things like libtool working properly on OSX, but we still have to go
through the jive of 15 minutes (yes, I'm exaggerating) of ./configure
checks when they'd be negligible in anything other than shell.  Think
of all of the collective hours of open-source development being wasted
there, every day...

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list