From: Warren Young
Date: December 29 2006 9:34pm
Subject: Re: Bakefile
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus/6229
Message-Id: <459589E0.90300@etr-usa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 
Bakefile project.

> 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 
about it.