Re: Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 12:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 12:57 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
Can you propose what the necessary change would be to:

Well that document is Autotools-specific. It would need to be written
from scratch for CMake following CMake conventions, and separately
again for Meson.

That is exactly the opposite of the intention of Colin's build-api
specification. The build-api is specifically written so that it
*doesn't* require every project to be built with Autotools. If it
assumed Autotools, it would be a much shorter document, starting with
"you must use Autotools" :-)

It *is* designed such that implementing it in Autotools modules is
trivial, because the free software world (with a particular focus on
the parts of it in and below GNOME) already contains a lot of
Autotools. Would you have preferred it to take the form

    ./ prepare with_libdir=/usr/lib64
    ./ build
    ./ install with_root=/foo

(ensuring that in practice, *every* project needs modifications if it
is to implement the build-api) out of some sense of artificial

The intention of the build-api, as I understand it, is to avoid this:

and this:

or if you think package-based distributions are a thing of the past[1],
this, part of the base on which gnome-continuous and the reference
Flatpak runtimes are built:

or further away from GNOME, this:

and more generally, everyone who builds an operating system having to
invent an abstraction layer across popular and semi-popular build
systems to map them into their favourite meta-build system.

(I'm using "operating system" rather loosely here: Flatpak doesn't
build operating systems, as such, but flatpak-builder uses the build-
api to build runtimes and apps.)


[1] I don't

Simon McVittie, Collabora Ltd. <>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]