| |||||||||||||
libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developerslibabc: a demonstration library for kernel developersPosted Nov 3, 2011 12:14 UTC (Thu) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)In reply to: libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers by quotemstr Parent article: libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers
One more: it is false to claim that there is no reasonable alternative to autotools.
CMake, scons, waf, probably more. CMake (I'm one of the developers) is of course the best choice, without doubt ;-)
Alex
(Log in to post comments)
libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers Posted Nov 3, 2011 18:19 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
I agree. We ought to be putting our effort into next generation build systems like CMake, rather than figuring out yet more ways to work around unfixable problems in autotools.
I've done a few conversions of projects from custom makefiles and autotools to CMake. In every case, the conversion was done in two days, and productivity was much higher afterwards.
I think some people are still wary of CMake because Linux distribution packaging folks are not as familiar with it as with autotools. But really, it's just a matter of time.
libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers Posted Nov 4, 2011 16:31 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
I have used CMake for a few years, and the CMake language is a horrible pain in the ass. You should have embedded an interpreter for a sensible language, like lua or elk or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||