3 ms·

I'm curious about this shell script ; this looks to good to be true! Having automated the build of dozens of FOSS packages, I can definitely say that autoconf-

by Ace17 11y ago

I'm curious about this shell script ; this looks to good to be true! Having automated the build of dozens of FOSS packages, I can definitely say that autoconf-based packages are _by far_ the easiest ones to build ; especially if you want to do funny stuff like out-of-tree builds or cross-compilation (can your 186-line script do this?). Some projects (x264, ffmpeg) provide 'configure'-like custom scripts, trying to imitate what autoconf does ; but in practise you can't automate their build the same way you did with autoconf-based projects.

bhaak 11y ago
I see where the hate for autoconf comes from. Properly done autoconf is very developer-friendly for building but if you have to maintain it, it can be a nightmare. OTOH, because you can always escape to shell scripts, I usually can fix any issue that crops up. With cmake, I regularly fail, e.g. configuring succeeds but building fails because of a missing library and because I actually have no clue what the standard approach should be (online documentation is abysmal with cmake).
atilaneves 11y ago
Have you tried CMake?
- Ace17 11y ago
  Yes. Cross-compilation of existing packets has proven to be a nightmare with cmake. I have to override manually CMAKE_C_COMPILER, CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER ... Have a look at zenbuild, which is a toy-project of mine trying to homogeneize the build interface of many FOSS projects. Each packet get its script (ala PKGBUILD), it can be seen as a list of hacks around the quirks of each project's build system. Projects using autoconf are a breeze to build: https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-libxau.sh https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-libxau.sh But projects using cmake are another story: https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-x265.sh https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-x265.sh
- abiox 11y ago
  i like the idea of cmake, but i thoroughly despise the pseudo-language. i haven't used it in some time, so perhaps it's improved; but the ergonomics, documentation and developer-friendliness of it was absolutely dreadful.

by Ace17 11y ago

bhaak 11y ago

I see where the hate for autoconf comes from. Properly done autoconf is very developer-friendly for building but if you have to maintain it, it can be a nightmare. OTOH, because you can always escape to shell scripts, I usually can fix any issue that crops up. With cmake, I regularly fail, e.g. configuring succeeds but building fails because of a missing library and because I actually have no clue what the standard approach should be (online documentation is abysmal with cmake).

atilaneves 11y ago

Have you tried CMake?

Ace17 11y ago
Yes. Cross-compilation of existing packets has proven to be a nightmare with cmake. I have to override manually CMAKE_C_COMPILER, CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER ... Have a look at zenbuild, which is a toy-project of mine trying to homogeneize the build interface of many FOSS projects. Each packet get its script (ala PKGBUILD), it can be seen as a list of hacks around the quirks of each project's build system. Projects using autoconf are a breeze to build: https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-libxau.sh https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-libxau.sh But projects using cmake are another story: https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-x265.sh https://github.com/Ace17/zenbuild/blob/master/zen-x265.sh
abiox 11y ago
i like the idea of cmake, but i thoroughly despise the pseudo-language. i haven't used it in some time, so perhaps it's improved; but the ergonomics, documentation and developer-friendliness of it was absolutely dreadful.