Will do! There is one big issue I hit on OS X which I’ve spoken with Andrew about. Whenever I run make with any kind of parallelism I run into this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7559 Since this applies to OS X it’s not really a blocker for us but it seemed a bit strange...
On 6/22/17, 11:56 AM, "Jeff Coffler" <[email protected]> wrote: >Thanks Aaron. Do keep in touch if you have any issues or find any >problems. > >I use the cmake system routinely (daily) to build both Linux and Windows, >and it works for us. I know others are using cmake too, but that said, it >is very new. If you have any problems or issues, we'd love to hear about >it! > >/Jeff > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wood, Aaron [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:28 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [E] Re: The state of cmake > >Thanks for the info everyone. I think this might be good enough for us to >move forward with since we don¹t need python/java bindings and we're >doing our own packaging/release anyway. >It might be nice to compile an exhaustive list of the differences between >the two since there might be small differences that most people might not >be aware of. For example, we¹d like to apply some hardening that¹s >already built into the auto tools side. We can apply it manually via >cmake flags for now so it¹s not a huge deal that it¹s not yet built into >the cmake system. > >Also, I¹ll help improve upon the cmake system as much as I can going >forward. We¹ll switch over to it sometime this month and contribute >patches if anything comes up :) > >Thanks, >Aaron > >On 6/21/17, 7:55 PM, "Joseph Wu" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Here's the earlier email which has the feature comparison: >> >>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.prote >>ction.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldef&d=DwIFAw&c=udBTRvFv >>XC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=Of4_2lOwuO41tqndIfzTuDYukljy48QGHOj >>PpLG5Ikg&m=Kbf1mNnwqoVDP_nRFnEMJkWFlQ7dkugg_f38iO3TBV4&s=xINJ-lZPWHDb5egk >>X_quFAQdG66T1NBevls9LOUIVOE&e= >>ense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__lists.apache.org_thre&da >>ta=02%7C01%7CJeff.Coffler%40microsoft.com%7C0866d0b62c4c41ee661808d4b98 >>46cd8%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636337425797116263&s >>data=W9EK1VdNuHjc28EpiD%2F9pDMMudA4DhGEgYFVzq%2B5NKk%3D&reserved=0 >>ad.html_527a29b45c52a042c122c96754804983b1447b7409ffec3d635b7143-40-253 >>Cde >>v.mesos.apache.org-253E&d=DwIBaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__ >>0Po >>mBTQ&r=Of4_2lOwuO41tqndIfzTuDYukljy48QGHOjPpLG5Ikg&m=tIOFEs3nvAbyrLpDdQ >>9tT >>Kuxp5VhX6z8CQCst_-pDLE&s=0H1X-xMm47jKQK8V25a60ZtbR3vHm83i7BK3sqnij2c&e= >> >>The list is still accurate, except that precompiled headers are no >>longer "upcoming". >> >>On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Jeff Coffler < >>[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Aaron, >>> >>> I'd like to expand on what Andy said: >>> >>> If you want cross-platform development, then cmake is the only way to >>>go. >>> For example, if you want to build on Windows, you MUST use cmake. We >>>anticipate, over time, that cmake will replace the autotools build (we >>>do not want to maintain two build systems). The cmake system is also >>>much more expandable (for example, while this hasn't been done on >>>Linux, Windows had dramatic speed improvements through the use of >>>precompiled headers - if someone was inclined to spend the time on >>>Linux, I imagine similar speed improvements are possible). Note, by >>>the way, that ReviewBot runs on Windows; if you break the Windows >>>build, you need to fix it prior to committing changes. >>> >>> I would say: If you don't care about Java or Python bindings, and >>>you're doing development (i.e. you don't need an installable >>>package), then cmake is a fine way to go. But if you need something >>>that only autotools does today, then you don't really have a choice. >>>Regardless, when you commit a change, you need to be sure that both >>>build systems work properly. >>> >>> Note that cmake is compatible with ccache. Also, FWIW, cmake also >>>gives you very nice "percentage done" notifications on Linux (i.e. >>>85% done, or whatever), which is super nice to know how far along you >>>are. That's a very cool feature that I just love. >>> >>> I agree that we sorely need a concise list of features that are >>>missing. >>> We need to understand what's missing, and judge how often missing >>>features are used, in order to "fully bake" the cmake build system in >>>Mesos. >>> >>> /Jeff >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andy Schwartzmeyer [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:12 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: The state of cmake >>> >>> Hi Aaron, >>> >>> The biggest difference right now is that the Java and Python bindings >>>are not built whatsoever with the CMake build system. We also do not >>>have an install target, so the CMake output is kind of stuck in >>>"developer mode" >>> and it won't generate an installable package. >>> >>> I probably would not yet recommend the CMake build system for >>> production use. >>> >>> As far as what features are missing, I'm not aware of a concise list, >>>but agree this is needed. Perhaps Joseph knows of one. If one does >>>not exist at all, perhaps it's time we audit the issues and do a >>>comparison of the two build systems as they stand now to generate >>>this list. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> From: Wood, Aaron<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:00 PM >>> To: dev<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: The state of cmake >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm curious as to what the current state of came is on Linux. I >>>noticed that some features that are present in the autotools build >>>are not yet in cmake. Also, the output from a successful cmake build >>>looks a bit different as far as the number of libraries that are >>>produced and the number of symlinks created. >>> >>> While the output of a cmake build does seem to work fine on Linux, is >>>there anything to be aware of that would cause issues for a production >>>release? Is there a list of features somewhere that are in autotools >>>but not yet in cmake? Does anyone think it is an exceptionally bad >>>idea to use the current cmake system to produce binaries for >>>production use? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> -Aaron >>> >>> >
