![]() Sadly, many developers have gotten in to the habit of copying makefiles from other assets- they simply change the. They are responsible for editing the makefiles to add new. Makefiles are currently maintained by developers (which is not necessarily a bad thing- it's actually what I would prefer in any new build system we put together). I suspect that since we use ACE, the importance of what autoconf provides for portability is reduced.Īs for developers, bad practices are mostly responsible for the mess we're in now. It is perhaps important to note that we use the open source project ACE to provide a platform abstraction layer. This code includes header files made public by the architectural layers below it (should, at least, see the next paragraph). Most assets are self-contained within a single source directory. With regards to tree layout, we have a layered architecture where most layers are compiled as shared libraries. If we were to move to Windows, we'd use cygwin/gcc (most likely) or the MS compiler. For compilation, we use which ever gcc compiler is the default for the RHEL version we're developing on. Honestly though, I don't see this happening soon. Some folks even want to leave the door for VxWorks open (gak!). We currently build our software on RHEL4, though we're on track to support RHEL5 and any REHL of the future. What platforms do you have to target? Compilers? How is your tree laid out? What do developers need to be able to do? What kind of compile-time configuration do you need? Who builds your software? How do you ship it? I am also open to any non-IDE based tool that would better fit our needs than SCons or CMake (though I would like to avoid a survey of what everyone uses).Ī better outline of your problems, beyond recursive make, would be useful. #Cmake vs make manual#A KDE lessons-learned article also gave me the impression that CMake might be easier to use.Ĭan anyone comment on the trade-offs between these tools? Is SCons like a manual transmission Porsche and CMake, an automatic Honda? The material I have found hints that SCons may be better at dependency management is this true? On the other hand, CMake’s native build script generation (makefile/project file) is a plus. ![]() I’ve done some preliminary investigation, and SCons and CMake look promising. ![]() Speed (A distant fifth anything would be better than recursive make.) Cost of training for day-to-day tasks (40+ developers)ĥ. Dependency Management (we have many many libraries)ģ. Here’s what we need, in order of importance:ġ. I would like to help by making tool suggestions. #Cmake vs make how to#Management is struggling to make the decision on how to fix it. ![]() The 4 million-line baseline is built entirely with hand-made recursive makefiles (a system with 15 year old roots). I work on a C++ project currently stuck in makefile hell. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |