[Aptitude-devel] Towards a better build system
nospam at vuorela.dk
Thu Apr 29 11:03:30 UTC 2010
On 2010-04-29, Daniel Burrows <dburrows at debian.org> wrote:
> Ok. I'm not emotionally committed to scons -- I have a nearly
I'm also not specially emotionally committed to cmake, but I must admit
that I'm quite emotionally committed against scons.
> complete "proof of concept" build system in the tree, but I wasn't
> especially impressed. The only thing I can say is that the result is
> better than autotools, but only just.
What's the metric for better? :)
> That said: I looked at the CMake Web site a bit last weekend and
> noticed that their FAQ says you can't build source distributions with
> cmake. Ew? I'll reserve judgement until I see your proof-of-concept,
what do you mean by 'source distributions' ?
I'm almost thru with a cmake proof of concept. It didn't take many hours
for one with almost no experience with aptitude codebase.
There are the following known limitations
- aptitude-gtk not built
- some data files not yet marked for installation
- some things is the config.h generation is hardcoded
- a bit of hardcoding the names of various libraries. proper FindFoo
macros should be found/written
- docs and translations not handled yet
I do have a couple of questions:
- is it correct that aptitude is designed to do a 'two pass' build,
first building aptitude and then creating a different config.h and
building aptitude-gtk ?
- is it correct that the boost_test tests doesn't build?
I do get a aptitude-curses launched now, and the cppunit tests does
work without failures.
I expect to get gtk to work tonight, and then I will post the results
before starting looking at the docs, as they seem to require quite some
work to get built.
More information about the Aptitude-devel