On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 08:32:15AM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Steve Havelka <smh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is it necessary that it's autoconf? Or would you take a CMake-based build > > script? > > > > > > > Though I think autoconf is also necessary (for use by people who do not have > cmake installed) I will also consider having appropriate cmake scripts in > the tree, for use by people have and prefer cmake. Would anybody care to > contribute the appropriate files? > > Note that Fossil has a two-stage build process. First it builds some C > programs that are used to pre-process the C code. It then runs these C > programs to convert the code in the source tree into new C code. The > converted C code is then compiled by the second phase to generate the Fossil > executable. Traditional unix "make" has no difficulty handling a two-phase > build like this. But MSVC seems unable to do it. I observe that cmake > claims to be able to generate MSVC projects. Does this mean that cmake is > also incapable of doing a two-phase build? Or has cmake found some way > around the limitations of MSVC?
We use things like this in cmake. It allows 'custom commands'. We mostly use the "nmake makefiles" in cmake for msvc, instead of projects, but I think all works in projects too. cmake allows defining "pre-build" custom commands, intermediate targets previous to the building (like you would do in the usual make), ... Having CMakeLists.txt files in fossil could serve as a test for cmake helping or not. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
