There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in the
gate.
I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems should I
care about?
autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
Three?
There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system (assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.
Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems should I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Sam, Ryan?
-ShawnOn 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?
There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system (assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in
the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems should
I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
There’s auto tools because that’s the karma we *nix lovers have to bear
Then there’s CMake because people contributed and we were looking for a way
to get rid of our karma.
And then there’s premake because we did a GSOC project trying to get rid of
CMake and auto tools, and also the hand crafted XCode and VS projects.
None of these is the end all be all solution…yet.
2014-07-22 0:22 GMT-03:00 Shawn Walker :> Sam, Ryan?
-Shawn
On 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?
There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system (assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems should I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
–
Gabriel.
I’m leaning towards CMake because it makes my life easier, being more and
more cross-platform friendly. It can also generate all those hand-made
projects by itself, meaning we could support only one build system. We
already have SDL compiling with it (and successfuly), why not just go for
it?
CMake doesn’t depend on bash or any other Linux tool as auto tools does
(not that I don’t like/use them myself, I’m a linux user), which is a big
win the way I see it.
I’m all in favor.
2014-07-22 10:17 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Jacobo :> There’s auto tools because that’s the karma we *nix lovers have to bear
Then there’s CMake because people contributed and we were looking for a
way to get rid of our karma.
And then there’s premake because we did a GSOC project trying to get rid
of CMake and auto tools, and also the hand crafted XCode and VS projects.None of these is the end all be all solution…yet.
2014-07-22 0:22 GMT-03:00 Shawn Walker :
Sam, Ryan?
-Shawn
On 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?
There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system (assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems should I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org–
Gabriel.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Last time this was discussed the problem with CMake was that it doesn’t
generate VS and XCode projects with relative paths, hence creating the need
to have CMake installed for those that wish to use these dev environments.
2014-07-22 19:07 GMT-03:00 Leonardo Guilherme <leonardo.guilherme at gmail.com>
:> I’m leaning towards CMake because it makes my life easier, being more and
more cross-platform friendly. It can also generate all those hand-made
projects by itself, meaning we could support only one build system. We
already have SDL compiling with it (and successfuly), why not just go for
it?CMake doesn’t depend on bash or any other Linux tool as auto tools does
(not that I don’t like/use them myself, I’m a linux user), which is a big
win the way I see it.I’m all in favor.
2014-07-22 10:17 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Jacobo <@Gabriel_Jacobo>:
There’s auto tools because that’s the karma we *nix lovers have to bear
Then there’s CMake because people contributed and we were looking for a
way to get rid of our karma.
And then there’s premake because we did a GSOC project trying to get rid
of CMake and auto tools, and also the hand crafted XCode and VS projects.None of these is the end all be all solution…yet.
2014-07-22 0:22 GMT-03:00 Shawn Walker :
Sam, Ryan?
-Shawn
On 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?
There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system (assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems should I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org–
Gabriel.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
–
Gabriel.
I understand.
The idea is really for the developer to have CMake installed and generate
the project themselves for whatever compiler/IDE they have available and
not to distribute the project generated by it.
It is not hard to install (far easier than MinGW + autotools IMO) and it
can add itself to the PATH on platforms where this matters.
In my opinion the gains are much greater than the losses (and the burdens
of having to install it), both for SDL developers and for its users who
wants to compile the latest versions of it. For the regular user, I don’t
see much gains (except running CPack and generating installers), as they
usually only see the built files.
Not my decision to favor CMake versus the others, but if there’s another
discussion between those who decide it, count me as a supporter of this
idea.
2014-07-22 20:07 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Jacobo :> Last time this was discussed the problem with CMake was that it doesn’t
generate VS and XCode projects with relative paths, hence creating the need
to have CMake installed for those that wish to use these dev environments.2014-07-22 19:07 GMT-03:00 Leonardo Guilherme <
@Leonardo_Guilherme>:I’m leaning towards CMake because it makes my life easier, being more and
more cross-platform friendly. It can also generate all those hand-made
projects by itself, meaning we could support only one build system. We
already have SDL compiling with it (and successfuly), why not just go for
it?CMake doesn’t depend on bash or any other Linux tool as auto tools does
(not that I don’t like/use them myself, I’m a linux user), which is a big
win the way I see it.I’m all in favor.
2014-07-22 10:17 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Jacobo :
There’s auto tools because that’s the karma we *nix lovers have to bear
Then there’s CMake because people contributed and we were looking for a
way to get rid of our karma.
And then there’s premake because we did a GSOC project trying to get rid
of CMake and auto tools, and also the hand crafted XCode and VS projects.None of these is the end all be all solution…yet.
2014-07-22 0:22 GMT-03:00 Shawn Walker :
Sam, Ryan?
-Shawn
On 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?
There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system (assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in
the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems should
I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org–
Gabriel.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org–
Gabriel.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
Isn’t CMake supposed to be installed on the development machine anyways?
I’ve been using it quite some time now, and as far as i know you
distribute the CMakeLists.txt files, and before you build, you use CMake
(which you need to have installed obviously) to generate some platform
specific build script like “make” or XCode projects etc.
you’re not supposed to share the generated project files with othersAm 23.07.2014 01:07, schrieb Gabriel Jacobo:
hence creating the need to have CMake installed for those that wish to
use
these dev environments.2014-07-22 19:07 GMT-03:00 Leonardo Guilherme
<leonardo.guilherme at gmail.com>:I’m leaning towards CMake because it makes my life easier, being
more and more cross-platform friendly. It can also generate all
those hand-made projects by itself, meaning we could support only
one build system. We already have SDL compiling with it (and
successfuly), why not just go for it?CMake doesn’t depend on bash or any other Linux tool as auto tools
does (not that I don’t like/use them myself, I’m a linux user),
which is a big win the way I see it.I’m all in favor.
2014-07-22 10:17 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Jacobo :
There’s auto tools because that’s the karma we *nix lovers have to
bear
Then there’s CMake because people contributed and we were looking
for a way to get rid of our karma.
And then there’s premake because we did a GSOC project trying to get
rid of CMake and auto tools, and also the hand crafted XCode and VS
projects.None of these is the end all be all solution…yet.
2014-07-22 0:22 GMT-03:00 Shawn Walker :
Sam, Ryan?
-Shawn
On 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system
(assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in
the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems
should I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]–
Gabriel.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]–
Gabriel.Links:
[1] http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
If I would start from scratch nowadays I would most likely use CMake. I
have always used autotools or hand made Makefiles. But this a pain to use
if you need to support a lot of systems. A collegue made a cool build
system based on CMake for a project called oryol (available on github). You
might want to check it out. Currently supported are windows, linux, macosx,
android, ios, nacl and emscripten.Am 23.07.2014 04:48 schrieb “Robotic-Brain” :
Isn’t CMake supposed to be installed on the development machine anyways?
I’ve been using it quite some time now, and as far as i know you
distribute the CMakeLists.txt files, and before you build, you use CMake
(which you need to have installed obviously) to generate some platform
specific build script like “make” or XCode projects etc.you’re not supposed to share the generated project files with others
Am 23.07.2014 01:07, schrieb Gabriel Jacobo:
hence creating the need to have CMake installed for those that wish to use
these dev environments.2014-07-22 19:07 GMT-03:00 Leonardo Guilherme
<leonardo.guilherme at gmail.com>:I’m leaning towards CMake because it makes my life easier, being
more and more cross-platform friendly. It can also generate all
those hand-made projects by itself, meaning we could support only
one build system. We already have SDL compiling with it (and
successfuly), why not just go for it?CMake doesn’t depend on bash or any other Linux tool as auto tools
does (not that I don’t like/use them myself, I’m a linux user),
which is a big win the way I see it.I’m all in favor.
2014-07-22 10:17 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Jacobo :
There’s auto tools because that’s the karma we *nix lovers have to
bear
Then there’s CMake because people contributed and we were looking
for a way to get rid of our karma.
And then there’s premake because we did a GSOC project trying to get
rid of CMake and auto tools, and also the hand crafted XCode and VS
projects.None of these is the end all be all solution…yet.
2014-07-22 0:22 GMT-03:00 Shawn Walker :
Sam, Ryan?
-Shawn
On 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system
(assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in
the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems
should I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]–
Gabriel.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]–
Gabriel.Links:
[1] http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
The issue with CMake is its incomplete and inconsistent/inaccurate documentation, along with the fact that it may or may not actually support things like OS X bundles properly (this is some of the inconsistent and incomplete documentation?) IF it works, it works well. If it doesn’t then it’s very difficult to get the desired result at all.
Autoconf by contrast doesn’t support them directly at all and expects you to write a Makefile yourself. If you assume you’re dealing with EITHER of GNU or BSD make, you can pretty much be assured that you can produce a working Makefile that’ll get the job done. Automake can also cope, though that’s a little harder to do. You’ll note SDL does not use automake. 
The real problem is that anything that does what CMake does is going to have to, by necessity, do magic for you and force your build system to behave a certain way. To people used to *make, it’s an unnatural way. Probably superior for many reasons, but unnatural. But it means they do not intuitively understand it. Add to that the lack of preprinted modules, the “official” modules that didn’t actually work reliably, and the generally incomplete nature of its documentation and the average developer will try it, decide that here be dragons, and go back to autoconf with a bad taste in their mouth for CMake.
JosephSent via iOS beta, so ? bugs
On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:27, M. Gerhardy <martin.gerhardy at gmail.com> wrote:
If I would start from scratch nowadays I would most likely use CMake. I have always used autotools or hand made Makefiles. But this a pain to use if you need to support a lot of systems. A collegue made a cool build system based on CMake for a project called oryol (available on github). You might want to check it out. Currently supported are windows, linux, macosx, android, ios, nacl and emscripten.
Am 23.07.2014 04:48 schrieb “Robotic-Brain” :
Isn’t CMake supposed to be installed on the development machine anyways?
I’ve been using it quite some time now, and as far as i know you distribute the CMakeLists.txt files, and before you build, you use CMake (which you need to have installed obviously) to generate some platform specific build script like “make” or XCode projects etc.you’re not supposed to share the generated project files with others
Am 23.07.2014 01:07, schrieb Gabriel Jacobo:
hence creating the need to have CMake installed for those that wish to use
these dev environments.2014-07-22 19:07 GMT-03:00 Leonardo Guilherme
<leonardo.guilherme at gmail.com>:I’m leaning towards CMake because it makes my life easier, being
more and more cross-platform friendly. It can also generate all
those hand-made projects by itself, meaning we could support only
one build system. We already have SDL compiling with it (and
successfuly), why not just go for it?CMake doesn’t depend on bash or any other Linux tool as auto tools
does (not that I don’t like/use them myself, I’m a linux user),
which is a big win the way I see it.I’m all in favor.
2014-07-22 10:17 GMT-03:00 Gabriel Jacobo :
There’s auto tools because that’s the karma we *nix lovers have to
bear
Then there’s CMake because people contributed and we were looking
for a way to get rid of our karma.
And then there’s premake because we did a GSOC project trying to get
rid of CMake and auto tools, and also the hand crafted XCode and VS
projects.None of these is the end all be all solution…yet.
2014-07-22 0:22 GMT-03:00 Shawn Walker :
Sam, Ryan?
-Shawn
On 2014-07-03 18:41, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Three?There are also several Visual Studio solutions and Xcode projects.
(Not that this makes the situation any better)
But I too am curious about this…
Maybe it is to make integration with your own build system
(assuming
you’re using one of the supported ones) easier.Cheers,
DanielAm 04.07.2014 02:58, schrieb Shawn Walker:
There appear to be three build system implementations for SDL2 in
the
gate.I’m sure there’s a good reason, but it’s left me quite confused.
If I submit a patch for SDL2, which of the three build systems
should I
care about?autoconf, premake, or CMake?
And for the love of pete, why are there three?
-Shawn
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]–
Gabriel.
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org [1]–
Gabriel.Links:
[1] http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org