Aw: Re: inquiry make documentation on native windows

[Bastian M. <bma...@we...>]

> Gesendet: Sonntag, 02. Januar 2022 um 14:18 Uhr
> Von: "Hans-Bernhard Bröker" <HBB...@t-...>
>
> Am 02.01.2022 um 08:56 schrieb Ethan A Merritt:
> 
> > Is it this file?
> >     .../config/mingw/Makefile >
> > How is that file generated?
> 
> It's not. All the actual makefiles in the "config" sub tree are 
> hand-written, except for the source file lists they import from the 
> generated src/makefile.all and src/makefile.awc.  The Makefile.am in 
> there is just for organizing the tarball.
> 
> There's a case to be made that a CMake setup could replace a large part 
> of those, particularly mingw, cygwin, msvc.  Among other things, that 
> could reduce the extra work of maintaining them all.

I second that. But CMake could also (mostly) replace the automake/conf 
build mechanism and hence unify the build system.
 
> I have a CMake script here that does most of what config/cygwin and 
> config/msvc achieve.  I haven't yet tried to add the extra work as done 
> by config/mingw: no TeX, no Japanese docs, etc.

I, too, have a prototype of a build system using CMake which currently 
(sort of) works for me with gcc on *nix, MinGW, MSVC, and OpenWatcom on
Windows, as well as gcc on OS/2. MacOS and Cygwin shouldn't be too hard to add.
Right now, it only covers building gnuplot and outbord terminals. It does not
cover packaging (sources, binaries, or installer), nor any documentation or
help files yet. It also still misses a number of tests.

For me, this at first started as a project to get to know CMake. I propose
to join efforts now to see if it turns out to be a viable and complete option.
Personally, I use a private github repo at the moment.
Hans-Bernhard, please let me know your thoughts on this.

  Bastian