hi.

i put this on pd-dev.

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

But if you really want to completely take over the build system from me, then I'd have no complaints. :)

actually i do.

scons is a nice, widely used, cross-platform and open build system. a few years ago somebody has done the work to sconsify the entire build-system in the repository. the only reminders of this attempt are stray sconstructs/sconscripts shattered throughout the source tree, most (if not none) of them not working.

i would prefer this not happening again.

however, i understand that it was a bad idea to put "only make and nothing but make" into the project description. i should have simply amde my point clear once the project was accepted.

I've never heard of cmake, so I can't say I have any objections.

i have inherited a cmake-based project once and the build-system was nothing but a pain in the arse (of course with me not wanting to learn cmake).

configure and make have the advantage of being widely used. Mostly, Pd externals don't even need much more than a basic makefile, so I think that simpler is better.

i am with you.

finally my not so secret plan for world domination was always about re-using the existing build-systems for externals (if an external already provided one), as this is the one that will be maintained as long as an external is maintained. i have very strong feelings about this.

using cmake, scons or whatever seems a bit of an overkill for recursively calling "make" :-)

fmgas.dr IOhannes

.hc

On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:04 AM, dmotd wrote:

...

hi hans, iohannes,

just a quick question, from 'PDextBuildSystem':

'The build-system should be based on 'make' (and explicitely not on cmake, tmake, scons and the like)'

can i ask what the objection to cmake is? bsd-licensed, totally cross platform, can generate Makefiles, msvc and xcode projects, good for managing mixed trunks, and by every indication seems to be a lot easier to configure than autotools.. if they are the pros then what are the cons? i am no build expert but i could potentially become interested/involved.

thanks,

dmotd

---

Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.

• from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs