From: Toon Knapen (toon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-16 02:38:37
Ronald Garcia wrote:
>
> kv> There is a free tool called autoconf to assist one in the
> kv> creation of such scripts. This stuff can run on Windows as
> kv> well, if you have the Cygwin tools installed.
>
> Just wanted to go on the record about configuration issues. To state
> my biases ahead, I develop primarily under Unices (Solaris and linux),
> so I'm used to installing/developing applications that use the gnu
> autotools (autoconf/automake/libtool). I have done a bit of toying
> with Macintosh CodeWarrior, but my own lack of knowledge regarding
> automating builds on Mac quickly discouraged me (my current assumption
> is that I'll be able to use Unix tools once MacOS X comes out).
>
> One of my strongest opinions about builds is that gnu autotools
> (autoconf/automake/libtool) are NOT a solution. On this list and
> other places, I frequently hear the pearl "well, with cygwin you can
> use autoconf under windows." In some circles, this is the right
> solution for configuration and build. I don't believe that Boost is
> such a circle. My reasoning is that the scope of boost greatly
> exceeds that group of C++ developers who are likely to tolerate
> dependence upon Unix tools in a non-unix environment. I feel that
> boost is attempting to target the greater C++ community, regardless of
> operating environment, and such a bias would be poor judgement on our
> part.
>
> I have to admit that I'm skeptical about the development of a good
> cross-platform build system, but at the same time I would greatly
> appreciate it if someone would prove me wrong (I feel this way not
> because I think it's impossible in the literal sense, but I doubt the
> commitment to the HARD work involved in developing and subsequently
> maintaining such a system).
There is a greate project/competition underway about improving
configuration-, build-, test- and bugtracking tools.
http://software-carpentry.codesourcery.com/
It's too late to join the competition but we could start from there
instead of starting from scratch.
>
> Until such a system is made available, I think that a reasonable
> solution would be to have package maintainers for different
> architectures. I've at least seen discussion here regarding the
> development of RPM's for linux, and with the current Boost release we
> have parallel .tar.gz and .zip releases.
I mainly work on Unix but have to port my tools also to windows.
However bringing the project/workspace files in sync with my
makefiles is a real pain.
However, someone of Microsoft even told me that they use makefiles
themselves.
Some functionality gets lost however in VC++ but it
unifies the system.
However, I would only see this approach as temporary since windows
users would prefer working with projects and workspaces.
toon