Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Implement CMake build

From: Isaac Hier <isaachier@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2018, 21:17 UTC
Message-ID: <CAG6xkCbT1t1X71FhHvbsX_gzx2a0hpP5Hsg59g9PMMoGJy=9CQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ee5185b1-7820-b2ac-1bde-da1c761fa594@jeffhostetler.com>

CMake is very portable (see https://open.cdash.org/index.php?project=CMake for details). About the whole autoconf history in Git, I came across this post by Linus while researching if anyone had done something with CMake in the git project before:

Show 12 quoted lines

> NO! At least the Makefile is debuggable and understandable.
>
> If we need a better build system, I'd much rather use something
> higher-level that can generate VC++ project files etc.
>
> In other words, I'd much rather see us using CMake or something like that,
> which actually adds real value-add.
>
> (And no, I've never used cmake, so maybe it has horrors waiting for us
> too, but autoconf is just worthless).
>
> Linus

https://marc.info/?l=git&m=115032515024816&w=2

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

>
>
> On 1/24/2018 2:59 PM, Isaac Hier wrote:
>>
>> Jeff, no worries, fair enough. I know https://github.com/grpc/grpc
>> uses a shared file to generate code for several build systems instead
>> of maintaining them individually. I plan on doing the work anyway just
>> because I have my own reasons to use CMake in Git (for packaging in
>> https://github.com/ruslo/hunter is my main motive here). Whether or
>> not it is maintained upstream is not a real concern for me at the
>> moment.
>
> [...]
>>
>> I'll see how the Windows build currently works and if that makes
>> sense, maybe I'll try using that build generator here too.
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback,
>>
>> Isaac
>
>
> Look at the "vcxproj:" target in config.mak.uname (in the GfW repo).
>
> Jeff