Re: The build system

[David Grundberg]

John Swensen skrev:

> I think the real questions that need answered are:
> 1) Does CMake (or your other favorite build system) have a smaller learning 
> curve than Autotools? <snip>

> 2) Will switching to CMake (or your other favorite build system) be any less 
> complex than the current autotools system?

Build systems are complex by their very nature.  If you try to make them
simple-minded, then you will not have a build system.  Beware of qmake,
disttools and BJam for these reasons, they aren't build systems.  They
are configuration files masquerading as makefiles.  So I think
non-complexity is the wrong thing to demand of a build system.

Octave isn't just a bunch of Makefiles/dependencies.  There are a lot of
essential logic in the autoconf scripts.  Even if you port all this, you
will still need the interpreters for the various scripts that generate
intermediate files.

So whatever build system you choose, you will have this very problem.
The build system will be complex, and people will find it daunting to learn.

> 3) Would switching to CMake (or your other favorite build system) actually 
> provide fixes for any of the build complaints people have (e.g. better 
> dependency management, faster build times, better modularization of builds)?

This is a good question, and arguing about it won't get us wiser.  It's
possible for anyone to make their own build scripts in parallel with the
current one if they like to know.

Grundberg