Re: [Libmesh-devel] Still Really Dislike Automake

[Derek G. <fri...@gm...>]

I suppose another option is to just support both build systems
indefinitely.  People who want/need the stuff automake does (out of tree,
dist, install) can use automake.  Everyone else that just wants to build
(98%+) can just type "make" and be happy...

Derek

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:31 PM Derek Gaston <fri...@gm...> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:54 AM Roy Stogner <roy...@ic...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, Derek Gaston wrote:
>>
>> Should we put one magic add_files.sh at the top level?
>>
>
> I guess?  I still don't understand why these are even necessary - there
> should just be a build rule for the symlinks!
>
>
>> Except... if you're going full Focus on creating a new build system,
>> presumably you'd want to put it in MOOSE too...
>>
>
> It already _is_ in MOOSE.  Our build system is pretty awesome.  Now:
> libMesh doesn't need that level of complexity (we have added complexity for
> the cascading build capability that doesn't need to be in libMesh) - but
> the basic ideas are already there.  We even have stuff that I have no idea
> how you would do with Automake like Unity Builds.
>
>
>> And I'd really love to be able to do out-of-source builds in MOOSE
>> too.  If "autoderek" handled that (plus "make install"; I don't care
>> as much about dist/distcheck) it would be totally worth the switch
>> from my point of view.  You'd still have to convince others though.
>>
>
> This is where we start to have a problem because I just seriously don't
> see compelling enough reasons for out of tree builds.  It adds a layer of
> complexity that is annoying - and it's not really compatible with any
> "in-editor" building (like using Emacs) making it pretty not useful for
> development.  On the other end, users don't need it at all because they are
> usually just happy to get something to build for _one_ environment
> configuration (and many never, ever want to rebuild after that).  I
> seriously think it's just not worth it.
>
> Now, "install" I can see a need for.  I don't personally care about it -
> but the arguments are convincing enough.  It's something that both
> developers and users might want to use.
>
> In my mind "install" also obviates a lot of the need for out-of-tree
> builds: if you need multiple configurations built - just install them to
> different places.
>
> If out-of-tree-builds are a requirement: I would like them off by default.
>
> Derek
>