Mailing-List: contact lucy-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: lucy-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Andrew S. Townley" <ast@atownley.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFAN8vySebxq2rgSQ=myJ5Rb3V5VgPMzkx1eyzW4FJNrszvQ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:10:30 +0000
Cc: peter@peknet.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E9802705-66CB-4C96-97C8-8F055874C1A9@atownley.org>
References: <20111027223135.GA24301@rectangular.com>
 <4EAA2EDA.7060901@peknet.com> <20111028060917.GA24897@rectangular.com>
 <4EB74599.6080106@peknet.com>
 <CAFAN8vySebxq2rgSQ=myJ5Rb3V5VgPMzkx1eyzW4FJNrszvQ0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: lucy-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] C implementation [was Re: [lucy-dev] All dependency
 licensing issues resolved]


On 7 Nov 2011, at 4:13 AM, Nathan Kurz wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Peter Karman <peter@peknet.com> wrote:
>> Marvin Humphrey wrote on 10/28/11 1:09 AM:
>>> It may be hard/awkward/impossible to do everything we need with =
Make.  We
>>> still have to run the Clownfish compiler from Perl right now, so =
when we get
>>> to that, we'll need a Perl script that we can run from Make.
>>=20
>> Is there anything to be gained by using autoconf and friends?
>>=20
>> Or asked another way, why would we *not* want to use autoconf and =
friends?

[snip]

> In the comments, there are a few couple good arguments for CMake as a
> more palatable and portable alternative, but I think the authors are
> right that we will viewed with considerable suspicion and initial
> prejudice by Linux developers if we don't use autoconf for a C
> library.
>=20
> Strangely, I think it's actually permissible if the actual Makefile
> calls out to Perl and Charmonizer (and to build Charmonizer), but for
> acceptance this should be hidden behind a layer of "configure && make
> && make install".
>=20
> I'm not sure what the Windows perspective looks like, but I fear it
> might not be compatible with this view.  Can any of the new additions
> to this list offer that perspective?  And what works well for OSX?
>=20
> --nate


The only thing I can add is that I've been going through the same =
questions for a different project and still failed to come up with an =
answer that I liked.  While it's a bit of a mutant, an advantage on OSX =
is that it will generate an Xcode project (along with MSVC projects), =
but there are still some issues.  I haven't yet made the decision, but =
having worked with autotools for years on some fairly complex projects, =
when they work, they do make life a lot simpler than trying to do =
cross-platform stuff other ways.

Obviously, autotools will work just fine on OSX, but they don't support =
integration with native applications very well.  Anytime you're doing =
any GUI stuff, you'll have developers using Xcode projects.  If there =
are a lot of source files, adding these to the project manually and =
getting things working from an autotools build is a bit of a PITA.

Again, I don't have an answer, but I wanted to provide some OSX-centric =
observations.

Cheers,

ast
--
Andrew S. Townley <ast@atownley.org>
http://atownley.org