Re: CMake for Apple?
This is an old thread, but I think it was the last message on cmake. In the 2.2-staging, with the provided patch (and provided I did not break anything for windows, but I tried to triple check everything), OS X compilation is (unless I am missing things) nearly feature complete. On OS X, it generates a full LyX and working bundle, with all the necessary dependencies - I checked with diffs on the autotools version. So from what I understand, there is not much missing in order to have cmake working on all platforms; would it be wise to pursue a bit the effort in order to leave autotools behind and focus only on cmake? This would avoid, e.g. for the transition to QT5, to have to check that everything works with the two build systems. If going in this direction, maybe creating a meta bug on trac would make it easier to track down what is missing. benjamin On 22 Mar 2014 at 11:14:41 , Jean-Marc Lasgouttes (lasgout...@lyx.org) wrote: Le 13/05/13 19:21, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : > I think it is worth investing time in it. At the meeting everybody > agreed that we should have one build system in the long run. But to make > cmake official we need to achieve the following: Translation: at the meeting we had a rather heated discussion where Abdel tried to make us think that all binary maintainer were eagerly waiting for the day where autotools will be dead and that if would be cruel from us to delay this moment. Or something. So we agreed that indeed one build system is better than two, and since windows people are kind of not adaptable (as in "I'll give you my visual studio project file when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"), only autotools could go. However, the point is that cmake is not ready for that now, so that the discussion is purely rhetoric (and believe me we had a lot of that in Milano :). Did I correctly translated Abdel? :p JMarc
Re: CMake for Apple?
Le 13/05/13 19:21, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit : I think it is worth investing time in it. At the meeting everybody agreed that we should have one build system in the long run. But to make cmake official we need to achieve the following: Translation: at the meeting we had a rather heated discussion where Abdel tried to make us think that all binary maintainer were eagerly waiting for the day where autotools will be dead and that if would be cruel from us to delay this moment. Or something. So we agreed that indeed one build system is better than two, and since windows people are kind of not adaptable (as in "I'll give you my visual studio project file when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"), only autotools could go. However, the point is that cmake is not ready for that now, so that the discussion is purely rhetoric (and believe me we had a lot of that in Milano :). Did I correctly translated Abdel? :p JMarc
Re: CMake for Apple?
Op 13 mei 2013 20:58 schreef "Georg Baum" het volgende: > > Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > > I think it is worth investing time in it. At the meeting everybody > > agreed that we should have one build system in the long run. But to make > > cmake official we need to achieve the following: > > 1) implement the missing feature of autotools in cmake, especially for > > MAC as I believe that Linux/Unix is complete thanks to the hard work of > > Peter first and then Kornel. > > 2) Deprecate autotools > > 3) update the documentation (Readme/Wiki/etc) > > 4) allow some time for developers to fully switch to cmake > > 5) remove autotools when we are done, hopefully before 2.1, if not for > > 2.2. > > > > The one point that still needs discussion is GLOB versus explicit file > > listing. While GLOB is IMO a very nice feature I know and understand > > others dislike it. So I guess we also need to do this in cmake. > > The usage of GLOB in cmake is the only reason why I still use autotools. It > interferes with my style of working (where it can happen that some play .cpp > files lie around), and it is also dangerous for making official builds: > These should only compile stuff which is explicitly listed, otherwise you > could easily end up with unreproducable compilations. Therefore I'd add one > item to the top of the list: Just a wild idea: Only add cpp-files that are version tracked by git. Vincent
Re: CMake for Apple?
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > I think it is worth investing time in it. At the meeting everybody > agreed that we should have one build system in the long run. But to make > cmake official we need to achieve the following: > 1) implement the missing feature of autotools in cmake, especially for > MAC as I believe that Linux/Unix is complete thanks to the hard work of > Peter first and then Kornel. > 2) Deprecate autotools > 3) update the documentation (Readme/Wiki/etc) > 4) allow some time for developers to fully switch to cmake > 5) remove autotools when we are done, hopefully before 2.1, if not for > 2.2. > > The one point that still needs discussion is GLOB versus explicit file > listing. While GLOB is IMO a very nice feature I know and understand > others dislike it. So I guess we also need to do this in cmake. The usage of GLOB in cmake is the only reason why I still use autotools. It interferes with my style of working (where it can happen that some play .cpp files lie around), and it is also dangerous for making official builds: These should only compile stuff which is explicitly listed, otherwise you could easily end up with unreproducable compilations. Therefore I'd add one item to the top of the list: 0) Implement explicit file lists and introduce a switch which you can use to choose between GLOB and explicit file lists. The default should be not to use GLOB. I agree that GLOB is a nice feature and has its use cases, but it is not a one fits all solution. > Final point: This is just a proposal based on the feedback I received > during the meeting. Other developers might disagree of course and in > this case we should discuss more :-) No, I think this is a pretty good summary (I can't tell about the meeting, but about the many messages that have already been written about this topic). Georg
Re: CMake for Apple?
Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > I think it is worth investing time in it. At the meeting everybody agreed > that we should have one build system in the long run. But to make cmake > official we need to achieve the following: > 1) implement the missing feature of autotools in cmake, especially for MAC > as I believe that Linux/Unix is complete thanks to the hard work of Peter > first and then Kornel. How about making correct tarballs, does it currently work in the same way as with autotools? (I mean producing approximately the same set of files.) Pavel
Re: CMake for Apple?
On 13/05/2013 14:54, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 13.05.2013 um 11:20 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski : When make install from CMake produces an useful result like the auto-tools make install we have a good starting point. Then one can change the mentioned shell script or add its functionality to the CMake package build. I don't have a strong preference towards any build system, but the only point is that having to take care of updating both each time is cumbersome and error-prone. So that's why I am ready to work on it - but only if cmake is chosen as the only build system (otherwise, it does not make sense to put so much effort in maintaining both working build systems). Yes, and I have to admit I never had a problem with multiple build systems. Surely because auto-tools and CMake both are working fine for me most of the time. OK, then maybe this is not worth investing time in it. Let's wait what others say. I think it is worth investing time in it. At the meeting everybody agreed that we should have one build system in the long run. But to make cmake official we need to achieve the following: 1) implement the missing feature of autotools in cmake, especially for MAC as I believe that Linux/Unix is complete thanks to the hard work of Peter first and then Kornel. 2) Deprecate autotools 3) update the documentation (Readme/Wiki/etc) 4) allow some time for developers to fully switch to cmake 5) remove autotools when we are done, hopefully before 2.1, if not for 2.2. The one point that still needs discussion is GLOB versus explicit file listing. While GLOB is IMO a very nice feature I know and understand others dislike it. So I guess we also need to do this in cmake. So Benjamin, if you are willing to help it will be very good for the project. Final point: This is just a proposal based on the feedback I received during the meeting. Other developers might disagree of course and in this case we should discuss more :-) Cheers, Abdel.
Re: CMake for Apple?
Am 13.05.2013 um 11:20 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski : > On May 13, 2013, at 10:35 , Stephan Witt wrote: > >> Am 13.05.2013 um 09:08 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski >> : >> >>> On May 12, 2013, at 17:51 , Stephan Witt wrote: >>> Am 12.05.2013 um 17:04 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski : > Hi, > > I would be happy to participate (in July/August) to make the cmake > building process complete and more fool-proof on mac (a few months ago I > was able to build successfully a working bundle). What do you call a working bundle? It has to contain the frameworks it depends on. Anyway, I have no preference for one build system or the other. And of course your support would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> A working bundle would be the full LyX application (i.e. the LyX.app folder >>> currently constructed correctly only by auto-tools). >> >> This would be a regression for the user. She has to download and install Qt >> frameworks >> herself and the remaining spell checker would be the "Native" one. >> Currently the Qt and >> spell checker frameworks are added to the bundle as private frameworks. The >> resulting >> bundle I'd call the "full LyX application". > They are (or at least were) included in the bundle with cmake builds, so I > guess this is OK. I see it now. There are missing pieces: * Qt frameworks: Qt depends dynamically on QtSvg, QtXml, QtNetwork * Qt plugins: libqgif.dylib, libqsvg.dylib, libqico.dylib, libqjpeg.dylib, libqtga.dylib, libqmng.dylib, libqtiff.dylib * Qt translations * Spotlight library > What was remaining was to include all the other resources (I did not check > that all files included by the shell script were included in the LyX.app > bundle constructed via cmake) The target "make install" produces a (nearly) valid LyX.app. (Without the missing pieces mentioned above.) BTW, I see tons of messages like this for "make install": src/CMakeFiles/LyX.dir/build.make:120: warning: overriding commands for target `bin/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/bind/menus.bind' src/CMakeFiles/LyX.dir/build.make:104: warning: ignoring old commands for target `bin/LyX.app/Contents/Resources/bind/menus.bind' The result of "make package" is not usable, IMHO. E.g. the copied LyX.app has no Frameworks folder. >> As I said already, this is done by a shell script and not by the auto-tools >> make install. > OK - I did not get this point. With CMake this shell script would not be > necessary. > >> >> When make install from CMake produces an useful result like the auto-tools >> make install >> we have a good starting point. Then one can change the mentioned shell >> script or add its >> functionality to the CMake package build. >> >>> I don't have a strong preference towards any build system, but the only >>> point is that having to take care of updating both each time is cumbersome >>> and error-prone. So that's why I am ready to work on it - but only if cmake >>> is chosen as the only build system (otherwise, it does not make sense to >>> put so much effort in maintaining both working build systems). >> >> Yes, and I have to admit I never had a problem with multiple build systems. >> Surely because auto-tools and CMake both are working fine for me most of the >> time. > OK, then maybe this is not worth investing time in it. Let's wait what others say. Stephan
Re: CMake for Apple?
On May 13, 2013, at 10:35 , Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 13.05.2013 um 09:08 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski > : > >> On May 12, 2013, at 17:51 , Stephan Witt wrote: >> >>> Am 12.05.2013 um 17:04 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski >>> : >>> Hi, I would be happy to participate (in July/August) to make the cmake building process complete and more fool-proof on mac (a few months ago I was able to build successfully a working bundle). >>> >>> What do you call a working bundle? It has to contain the frameworks it >>> depends on. >>> Anyway, I have no preference for one build system or the other. And of >>> course your >>> support would be greatly appreciated. >> >> A working bundle would be the full LyX application (i.e. the LyX.app folder >> currently constructed correctly only by auto-tools). > > This would be a regression for the user. She has to download and install Qt > frameworks > herself and the remaining spell checker would be the "Native" one. Currently > the Qt and > spell checker frameworks are added to the bundle as private frameworks. The > resulting > bundle I'd call the "full LyX application". They are (or at least were) included in the bundle with cmake builds, so I guess this is OK. What was remaining was to include all the other resources (I did not check that all files included by the shell script were included in the LyX.app bundle constructed via cmake) > > As I said already, this is done by a shell script and not by the auto-tools > make install. OK - I did not get this point. With CMake this shell script would not be necessary. > > When make install from CMake produces an useful result like the auto-tools > make install > we have a good starting point. Then one can change the mentioned shell > script or add its > functionality to the CMake package build. > >> I don't have a strong preference towards any build system, but the only >> point is that having to take care of updating both each time is cumbersome >> and error-prone. So that's why I am ready to work on it - but only if cmake >> is chosen as the only build system (otherwise, it does not make sense to put >> so much effort in maintaining both working build systems). > > Yes, and I have to admit I never had a problem with multiple build systems. > Surely because auto-tools and CMake both are working fine for me most of the > time. OK, then maybe this is not worth investing time in it.
Re: CMake for Apple?
Am 13.05.2013 um 09:08 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski : > On May 12, 2013, at 17:51 , Stephan Witt wrote: > >> Am 12.05.2013 um 17:04 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski >> : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would be happy to participate (in July/August) to make the cmake building >>> process complete and more fool-proof on mac (a few months ago I was able to >>> build successfully a working bundle). >> >> What do you call a working bundle? It has to contain the frameworks it >> depends on. >> Anyway, I have no preference for one build system or the other. And of >> course your >> support would be greatly appreciated. > > A working bundle would be the full LyX application (i.e. the LyX.app folder > currently constructed correctly only by auto-tools). This would be a regression for the user. She has to download and install Qt frameworks herself and the remaining spell checker would be the "Native" one. Currently the Qt and spell checker frameworks are added to the bundle as private frameworks. The resulting bundle I'd call the "full LyX application". As I said already, this is done by a shell script and not by the auto-tools make install. When make install from CMake produces an useful result like the auto-tools make install we have a good starting point. Then one can change the mentioned shell script or add its functionality to the CMake package build. > I don't have a strong preference towards any build system, but the only point > is that having to take care of updating both each time is cumbersome and > error-prone. So that's why I am ready to work on it - but only if cmake is > chosen as the only build system (otherwise, it does not make sense to put so > much effort in maintaining both working build systems). Yes, and I have to admit I never had a problem with multiple build systems. Surely because auto-tools and CMake both are working fine for me most of the time. Stephan
Re: CMake for Apple?
On May 12, 2013, at 17:51 , Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 12.05.2013 um 17:04 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski > : > >> Hi, >> >> I would be happy to participate (in July/August) to make the cmake building >> process complete and more fool-proof on mac (a few months ago I was able to >> build successfully a working bundle). > > What do you call a working bundle? It has to contain the frameworks it > depends on. > Anyway, I have no preference for one build system or the other. And of course > your > support would be greatly appreciated. A working bundle would be the full LyX application (i.e. the LyX.app folder currently constructed correctly only by auto-tools). I don't have a strong preference towards any build system, but the only point is that having to take care of updating both each time is cumbersome and error-prone. So that's why I am ready to work on it - but only if cmake is chosen as the only build system (otherwise, it does not make sense to put so much effort in maintaining both working build systems). Benjamin
Re: CMake for Apple?
Am 12.05.2013 um 17:04 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski : > Hi, > > I would be happy to participate (in July/August) to make the cmake building > process complete and more fool-proof on mac (a few months ago I was able to > build successfully a working bundle). What do you call a working bundle? It has to contain the frameworks it depends on. Anyway, I have no preference for one build system or the other. And of course your support would be greatly appreciated. Stephan > If some are interested to do the same effort for the linux platform, then it > could be an occasion to get rid of the old auto-tools chain since windows is > already not using it. Maintaining two build systems is cumbersome and may > introduce lots of compilation errors when switching from one tool to the > other (this happened when I submitted patches to LyX). > > benjamin > > On May 12, 2013, at 13:41 , Stephan Witt wrote: > >> Am 12.05.2013 um 11:18 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : >> >>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Stephan Witt wrote: Am 11.05.2013 um 17:50 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : > Hi Stephan, > > At LyX meeting we are wondering why you are still using autotools for Mac > packaging. Do you miss anything from CMake that is not implemented yet? Hi all at the LyX meeting, I hope you're well and someone is drinking wine too… :) >>> I had some ;-) >>> >>> Regarding the CMake question - I never tried it for a long time. >>> Ah? I got the impression you were developping using cmake and xcode... But >>> I see in your other email that this does not work anymore... >>> So I cannot answer the question. Isn't the autotools build the official one? >>> Up to now yes, except for Windows. >>> >>> I was trying to advocate yesterday that we should really move to cmake on >>> all platforms. I guess this is already a lost battle… >> >> I'm using CMake to generate the Xcode-project for debugging purposes. >> >> The packaging is done by a shell script to wrap all needed resources into >> one bundle. >> The first step is making the pure LyX.app bundle (make install). >> Then the additional parts are copied into this app bundle. The used >> frameworks >> (spell checker libraries, gettext and Qt4) needs to be adjusted to make them >> relocatable. >> The dictionaries and thesauri are simply copied into it too. >> >> Of course one can do these steps with CMake but I never got a friend of it's >> language >> and I'm loosing to much time to find my mistakes when using it. If it had >> the ability to >> tell me what it's doing and why… sorry, the verbose option of it is not >> enough for me. >> >> Stephan > > >
Re: CMake for Apple?
Hi, I would be happy to participate (in July/August) to make the cmake building process complete and more fool-proof on mac (a few months ago I was able to build successfully a working bundle). If some are interested to do the same effort for the linux platform, then it could be an occasion to get rid of the old auto-tools chain since windows is already not using it. Maintaining two build systems is cumbersome and may introduce lots of compilation errors when switching from one tool to the other (this happened when I submitted patches to LyX). benjamin On May 12, 2013, at 13:41 , Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 12.05.2013 um 11:18 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : > >> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Stephan Witt wrote: >>> Am 11.05.2013 um 17:50 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : >>> Hi Stephan, At LyX meeting we are wondering why you are still using autotools for Mac packaging. Do you miss anything from CMake that is not implemented yet? >>> >>> Hi all at the LyX meeting, >>> >>> I hope you're well and someone is drinking wine too… :) >>> >> I had some ;-) >> >> >>> Regarding the CMake question - I never tried it for a long time. >>> >> Ah? I got the impression you were developping using cmake and xcode... But I >> see in your other email that this does not work anymore... >> >>> >>> So I cannot answer the question. Isn't the autotools build the official one? >>> >> Up to now yes, except for Windows. >> >> I was trying to advocate yesterday that we should really move to cmake on >> all platforms. I guess this is already a lost battle… > > I'm using CMake to generate the Xcode-project for debugging purposes. > > The packaging is done by a shell script to wrap all needed resources into one > bundle. > The first step is making the pure LyX.app bundle (make install). > Then the additional parts are copied into this app bundle. The used frameworks > (spell checker libraries, gettext and Qt4) needs to be adjusted to make them > relocatable. > The dictionaries and thesauri are simply copied into it too. > > Of course one can do these steps with CMake but I never got a friend of it's > language > and I'm loosing to much time to find my mistakes when using it. If it had the > ability to > tell me what it's doing and why… sorry, the verbose option of it is not > enough for me. > > Stephan
Re: CMake for Apple?
Am 12.05.2013 um 11:18 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Stephan Witt wrote: >> Am 11.05.2013 um 17:50 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : >> >> > Hi Stephan, >> > >> > At LyX meeting we are wondering why you are still using autotools for Mac >> > packaging. Do you miss anything from CMake that is not implemented yet? >> >> Hi all at the LyX meeting, >> >> I hope you're well and someone is drinking wine too… :) >> > I had some ;-) > > >> Regarding the CMake question - I never tried it for a long time. >> > Ah? I got the impression you were developping using cmake and xcode... But I > see in your other email that this does not work anymore... > >> >> So I cannot answer the question. Isn't the autotools build the official one? >> > Up to now yes, except for Windows. > > I was trying to advocate yesterday that we should really move to cmake on all > platforms. I guess this is already a lost battle… I'm using CMake to generate the Xcode-project for debugging purposes. The packaging is done by a shell script to wrap all needed resources into one bundle. The first step is making the pure LyX.app bundle (make install). Then the additional parts are copied into this app bundle. The used frameworks (spell checker libraries, gettext and Qt4) needs to be adjusted to make them relocatable. The dictionaries and thesauri are simply copied into it too. Of course one can do these steps with CMake but I never got a friend of it's language and I'm loosing to much time to find my mistakes when using it. If it had the ability to tell me what it's doing and why… sorry, the verbose option of it is not enough for me. Stephan
Re: CMake for Apple?
So I cannot answer the question. Isn't the autotools build the official one? Up to now yes, except for Windows. I was trying to advocate yesterday that we should really move to cmake on all platforms. I guess this is already a lost battle... Hmm.. your chances are not that bad really. Vincent
Re: CMake for Apple?
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Stephan Witt wrote: > Am 11.05.2013 um 17:50 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : > > > Hi Stephan, > > > > At LyX meeting we are wondering why you are still using autotools for > Mac packaging. Do you miss anything from CMake that is not implemented yet? > > Hi all at the LyX meeting, > > I hope you're well and someone is drinking wine too… :) > I had some ;-) > > Regarding the CMake question - I never tried it for a long time. > Ah? I got the impression you were developping using cmake and xcode... But I see in your other email that this does not work anymore... > So I cannot answer the question. Isn't the autotools build the official > one? > Up to now yes, except for Windows. I was trying to advocate yesterday that we should really move to cmake on all platforms. I guess this is already a lost battle... Cheers, Abdel
Re: CMake for Apple?
Am 11.05.2013 um 17:50 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes : > Hi Stephan, > > At LyX meeting we are wondering why you are still using autotools for Mac > packaging. Do you miss anything from CMake that is not implemented yet? Hi all at the LyX meeting, I hope you're well and someone is drinking wine too… :) Regarding the CMake question - I never tried it for a long time. So I cannot answer the question. Isn't the autotools build the official one? The final package consists of * the LyX.app with - the Qt framework and - the spell checker libraries * the special finder view with - the background image Stephan
