4 ms·

I wish this were true. Getting cmake to do something off the wall like building static executable binaries is...frustrating. I had high hopes for scons, but th

I wish this were true. Getting cmake to do something off the wall like building static executable binaries is...frustrating. I had high hopes for scons, but that turned into a quagmire. Any build system that's going to unseat autotools will need to obviate the need for almost all custom scripts. AKA, specify the 'what', and let the user apply a 'recipe' for the 'how'. Or something...if I knew what it was supposed to look like I'd build it.

MereInterest 12y ago
Out of curiosity, what are the quagmire-ish aspects of scons? I've been using it for a while, and it hasn't seemed too bad, which probably means that I haven't run into them yet.
- michael_h 12y ago
  Scons itself isn't bad, but it's power is also it's downfall: the build script is an unrestricted Python file. I almost always find that something 'clever' has been stashed in the SConscript. Plus, everybody writes wrapper functions for the env.* stuff - meaning just about every project has a second, hidden codebase that you need to learn first.
  - MereInterest 12y ago
    Ah, got it. I'll admit that I tend to make build scripts that are a bit too complicated, due to the freedom of having a full language, but it is quite nice to have when needed. It does end up with build scripts that are far more flexible, though, not having read build scripts that others have written, I don't know how much of a cost there is to it.
bch 12y ago
Cmake missed a huge opportunity when they developed their own syntax. Ironically, Cmake was invented specifically[0] for a project that was embedding Tcl, which is what they should have done with Cmake, too (embed Tcl). Cmake can be really nice to use for simple projects, but for the cases it gets you 95% to where you want to be... So frustrating. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMake#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMake#History
colin_mccabe 12y ago
It's not that difficult to get CMake to build a static binary. SET(CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES ".a") SET(BUILD_SHARED_LIBRARIES OFF) SET(CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS "-static") The bigger problems with building a static binary on Linux are that: 1. Most Linux distros don't install static versions of libraries. You can't link in a static library dependency that doesn't exist. 2. glibc can't "really" be linked statically because of the way it's designed. See here for the gory details: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-12/msg00083.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-12/msg00083.html Naturally, you have problems #1 and #2 with autotools or any other build system as well, since they aren't CMake problems.

MereInterest 12y ago

Out of curiosity, what are the quagmire-ish aspects of scons? I've been using it for a while, and it hasn't seemed too bad, which probably means that I haven't run into them yet.

michael_h 12y ago
Scons itself isn't bad, but it's power is also it's downfall: the build script is an unrestricted Python file. I almost always find that something 'clever' has been stashed in the SConscript. Plus, everybody writes wrapper functions for the env.* stuff - meaning just about every project has a second, hidden codebase that you need to learn first.
- MereInterest 12y ago
  Ah, got it. I'll admit that I tend to make build scripts that are a bit too complicated, due to the freedom of having a full language, but it is quite nice to have when needed. It does end up with build scripts that are far more flexible, though, not having read build scripts that others have written, I don't know how much of a cost there is to it.

bch 12y ago

Cmake missed a huge opportunity when they developed their own syntax. Ironically, Cmake was invented specifically[0] for a project that was embedding Tcl, which is what they should have done with Cmake, too (embed Tcl). Cmake can be really nice to use for simple projects, but for the cases it gets you 95% to where you want to be... So frustrating. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMake#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMake#History

colin_mccabe 12y ago

It's not that difficult to get CMake to build a static binary. SET(CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES ".a") SET(BUILD_SHARED_LIBRARIES OFF) SET(CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS "-static") The bigger problems with building a static binary on Linux are that: 1. Most Linux distros don't install static versions of libraries. You can't link in a static library dependency that doesn't exist. 2. glibc can't "really" be linked statically because of the way it's designed. See here for the gory details: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-12/msg00083.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1998-12/msg00083.html Naturally, you have problems #1 and #2 with autotools or any other build system as well, since they aren't CMake problems.