Menu
▾
▴
Re: [proteowizard-developer] Cmaking pwiz
|
From: Matt C. <mat...@gm...> - 2012-12-28 19:47:52
|
Hi Witold, Sorry, an official CMake build is not going to happen. I grant you it's more widely used and documented, but it's not as easy/fast to configure (once you learn how) and the makefile syntax is even more yucky than bjam's. If you want to do what Brian did and autogenerate the CMakefiles from observing the bjam build output (which is pretty cool), even without vendor support, that could be quite nice, and we could do a nightly run of it on TeamCity. -Matt On 12/18/2012 11:07 AM, Brian Pratt wrote: > I would really encourage you to look at the existing work that simply observes the activity of a > successful bjam build and makes alternate build files based on that logfile. Parsing the jamfiles > directly is pretty ambitious - bjam itself occasionally has a hard time doing that. > > The good news on linux is that the vendor stuff doesn't matter - it's windows only. On the windows > side the vendor stuff is such a tricky and moving target that it's best left to the official and > constantly maintained bjam system. > > To be honest I'm not sure yet another semiofficial build system will be met with enthusiasm, > particularly if nobody in the proteowizard dev team uses or supports it. > > Brian > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Witold E Wolski <wew...@gm... <mailto:wew...@gm...>> wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > I think it would be worth the effort. I am quite fond of cmake when configuring and building > projects. Furthermore, for development I am using Qtcreator which supports cmake projects. > > Would you mind having an "testing/unsuported" cmake build options (which means having the > CMakeLists.txt in the svn)? > > Adding cmake support (So that It works for me on linux with the gnu compiler collection or > clang) would take me maybe up 3 working days (). > Getting cmake -> VS studio output working on Windows without the vendor dependencies I guess > longer (I am currently not developing under windows). Setting up cmake with all the vendor > dependencies ... i don't know. > > As to your suggestion creating the CMakeLists.txt file using a python script form Jamfiles ... I > started by hand, looking at the Jamfiles and writing the CMakeLists.txt s, and maybee will get > an idea how to automate this, but I am rather sceptical. CMake is a meta build system tool, so > you do things (i.e. specifying dependencies) differently. > > regards > > > regards > Witold > > > > > > > > On 18 December 2012 16:39, Brian Pratt <bri...@in... > <mailto:bri...@in...>> wrote: > > By the way, the configure/makefile build files are generated by a Python script that parses > the build logs from a bjam build. The MSVC build files are generated the same way. You > might want to take a run at generating a cmake build the same way, if you feel strongly > about it. > > Brian > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Brian Pratt <bri...@in... > <mailto:bri...@in...>> wrote: > > CMake has some excellent properties, but the "configure/make/make install" scheme is > undeniably the most common way to deliver a project for crossplatform compilation. > > Have you tried using bjam to build pwiz from source? When it works it's pretty slick. > When it doesn't, I do find it kind of hard to disentangle, but others would make the > same complaint about cmake, or configure. > > Brian > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Witold E Wolski <wew...@gm... > <mailto:wew...@gm...>> wrote: > > Just wondering if anyone was thinking about moving pwiz at least for the linux build > to cmake? > I am asking because I have some experience with cmake and find flexible and rather > easy (with the gui support through ccmake or cmake-gui) to use and configure > while bjam and configure Makefile are ... first I don't know them ... and secondly > don't seem as popular. > > > regards > > > -- > Witold Eryk Wolski |