No announcement yet.

Developers Explore Meson Build System For Wayland / Weston

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by s_j_newbury View Post
    I certainly can't argue with new projects choosing the build-system that is the "best fit", that does often seem to be CMake currently. I suppose I just don't want to feel I've wasted all that effort learning autotools! ;-)
    To be honest, when I moved over to CMake after using the autotools for nearly 15 years, that was certainly a factor to consider. However, I think it's also fair to say that a huge amount of your hard-won autotools expertise will translate directly to CMake. It's merely a matter of learning the cmake equivalent for the various autotools features. The concepts are largely identical: project name+version, configurable options, feature detection, header and other file generation, specification of sources, headers, what to build and where to install. For many projects I've been able to rename the and to CMakeLists.txt and run straight down them converting each block to cmake as I go. For some projects I did consider leaving them using autotools, but once I'd gained the skill to convert a project in an hour or two, the simplicity and flexibility gained by doing so made it worth it. I even retain the same autoconf/automake split: project configuration at the top level, feature macros from m4/ are now feature macros in cmake/ and the logic in the source directory remains in exactly the same place but in CMakeLists.txt instead. This makes conversion simpler, and easy to adopt for developers already familiar with the old autotools organisation.
    Last edited by rleigh; 01-04-2017, 07:29 PM.


    • #22
      For those still interested in this thread -- I started a new project, R┼Źnin, which is yet another Python frontend to Ninja. In my eyes it fixes the problems I have with all the others.