Is there room for another build system?

Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:54:35 +0200
From: Albert Graef <Dr.Graef@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system?
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu>
Message-ID: <4890C6FB.7090106@t-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Duncan Sands wrote:

Do ordinary users need to have cmake if they want to build llvm?
If so, that's bad because they'll have to install it (unlike the
current setup, where only very standard tools are needed).

That's not the only problem with cmake. The autotools may be a big and
ugly beast, but that's because they're trying to solve a big and ugly
problem for which there is no silver bullet. And they are still much
more comprehensive than cmake. I've considered cmake time and again for
my own projects, but I don't think that it's quite there yet. Here are
some points worth considering: Remlab: Issues with CMake
(Some of these may already be addressed in newer cmake versions, I
haven't checked recently.)

Albert

I'm not qualified to argue the pros and cons of build systems, but the topic is interesting to me, and I'm grateful to you for the link.

Here's a little more fuel for the discussion:

  Best Open Source Mac Software 2022

Also, this page purports to explain why KDE abandoned SCons for CMAKE. Alas, it lacks detail about the problems they found, other than "major problems building KDE on non-Linux platforms with SCons (e.g. on OS X)..."

  Why the KDE project switched to CMake -- and how (continued) [LWN.net]

stuart