Follow

computers 

Status: learning

What the scripts are going to replace is way worse. And I don't have time to perform comparative analysis of the gazillion presumably better replacements.

computers 

@amiloradovsky oh no oh no
use meson or cmake
or plain make
literally anything but autotools
you WILL regret it

re: computers 

@chjara Plain Makefiles is a lot of typing. Why Meson. Why Cmake?

re: computers 

@amiloradovsky meson is simple
cmake is ehh but more programmable than meson in some cases
make is pain, yes
but autotools is e v e n w o r s e

re: computers 

@newt @chjara To me, all the build system look meh. I wouldn't want to deal with them at all, but I need to. And I'm not sure what exactly the alternatives have to offer that Autotools doesn't, or how exactly they're better. I've only encountered a lot of impressions, but nothing specific was mentioned.

Over time I kinda learned how to fight back against Autotools when building something, so I'm not intimidated by it anymore. I also don't want to bring any new languages into the stack (no build systems written in Rust etc.).

re: computers 

@newt @chjara firmware in C, no dynamic linking etc. to worry about

re: computers 

@amiloradovsky @chjara I'd use CMake or plain Makefiles. Since the latter won't work for you, CMake is rather simple and a lot more portable than Autohell.

re: computers 

@newt @chjara I'll look into it, but it still seems overkill. I don't think I need Qt for that…
Just a few templates to generate the Makefiles would suffice.

re: computers 

@newt @chjara cmake-gui, I don't want dependencies on GUI toolkits. I'm also just drowning in the technicalities in the tutorial. Doesn't look good either.

re: computers 

@newt @chjara I'm looking at this and don't get how it's better. Looks horrible.
People all over the Internet keep loathing Autotools, I can understand why, but I guess I'd rather debug the issues with it than with a completely different build system whose only advantage is being written in C++ and not M4 or GUI for Windows.

re: computers 

@amiloradovsky @chjara the problem with autotools is that it isn't even backwards or forwards compatible with itself. And it's also a lot easier to write scripts that won't work on other platforms.

Ok, maybe you should look at meson. This looks rather sweet, if you ask me.

https://mesonbuild.com/Meson-sample.html

re: computers 

@newt @chjara This thing at least looks more consistent.
For now I only need to customize all the build parameters for the toolchain, including custom linker script. And a place to register all the sources.

I may also need to build several executables for different purposes and platforms from partly the same sources. Say, link part of the project with a shared library and run it on amd64 to test the algorithms themselves.

re: computers 

@amiloradovsky it depends a lot on the codebase: in the "classical" setup the only serious alternative is cmake, which it much worse, imho (unless you need Windows support). I only wish they used a decent language, and not m4, ffs.

re: computers 

@dimpase Agreed. I won't consider CMake any time soon, I expect. looks better, but it's still dependency on Python, under permissive license, and it's development happens on the silos, ATM. So I can't be super excited about it either.

I wish there was a build system a la Autotools but in . To complement and replace in projects finally.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Functional Café

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!