Ian Miller wrote:
> In comparing the experience with both packages, I found the makefile
> generation easier with the visualization package. They use an
> opensource tool called cmake, which performs the same
> (cross-platform) functions as bakefile, but which seems more mature.
Yes, I'm aware of cmake, and I think I've come across others as well.
I'll resist moving to yet another build system, because we've had a
different one for every major point release since I took over
maintenance of MySQL++. It's time for a little stability now. To the
extent that we need new features, I'd rather work from within the
> I still haven't gotten bakefile to set up correctly,
Why is it that you need Bakefile set up at all? There are only two
cases I can think of: building from svn, or building from the .src.rpm.
If you build the library from the tarball, the Makefiles and project
files are generated for you.
The .src.rpm case is annoying, I know. The risk I'm trying to mitigate
against is that Bakefile generation done here on my development system
may differ in some way to that done in your RPM build environment. RPM
building is so automated that I like to be super-conservative in the
process to ensure that it always completes, because it's really annoying
to have to keep retrying the build to fix little problems. Contrast
building from a tarball, where you almost never have to completely
restart the build to fix something. If that's all you're running into,
we can talk about removing that requirement. I don't feel strongly
|• Bakefile||Ian Miller||29 Dec|
| • Re: Bakefile||Warren Young||29 Dec|