Thanks Nathan for that information. If I can capture the command lines I will be all right.
I would like to express an opinion about make. It is a clever utility. That link shows that nearly everyone uses make in some form or another. Whether it is cmake or auto-tools it would be better if whatever generates make files produces files which do justice to make. I do not see that this is the case either with cmake or auto-tools. You get something that might work if there are no errors but is overly complex and obscure for maintaining a build. It is a side-issue with respect to SDR of course but I am interested in promoting make for stand-alone use. On 14 September 2015 at 02:58, West, Nathan <n...@ostatemail.okstate.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Robert Durkacz <robert.durk...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> My question is, is there some recommended way to get the command lines >> printed out as they are executed. > > > with cmake generated make files you can use make VERBOSE=1 or define the > cmake variable CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=On. > >> >> Also there is something called pybombs. Is this an alternative to >> cmake? > > > No. Pybombs is a way to build gnuradio and dependencies inside a target > prefix. > >> >> If so is the gnuradio build system in a state of flux? > > > No. > >> >> Can anyone point me to some document or forum where the whys and >> wherefores of the build system are discussed? > > > I cannot and as far as I know there is no document formally justifying the > choices. If you are turned off by cmake compared to autotools then you're > probably in the minority of C++ developers [0] (apologies for the crappy > presentation, but it's the only source of this info I know of, anyway see > box #12). > > [0] box 12 in > http://blog.jetbrains.com/clion/2015/07/infographics-cpp-facts-before-clion/ _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
