Hi Stephen,
2015-01-06 0:20 GMT+01:00 Stephen Fisher <sfisher@xxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:34:16PM -0500, Ed Beroset wrote:
>
>> Having been around this particular block a couple of times, yes, CMake
>> at times is a battle, but it's also better than the alternative of
>> producing (and maintaining) multiple mutually incompatible and
>> inevitably arbitrarily different build systems in parallel.
>
> The beauty of autoconf/automake on Unix is that it spits out standard
> MakefileS so that normal users don't have to install a special program
> just to build the software. I haven't tried Wireshark with CMake yet,
> but doesn't every user have to install it to build the software? Or can
> cmake's output be included in source distributions so only developers
> need it?
Originally I was skeptical regarding CMake, but now I think this is
the best cross-platform option, thus the best option for Wireshark.
Just give it a try, and you will never look back. :-)
Theoretically autofoo creates ./configure and a proper makefile
system, but in reality the generated scripts get bitrot thus you
practically need autofoo everywhere.
New platforms for example don't have their gnu triplet in outdated
configure scripts.
Today the the best practice (IMO) is _not_ shipping configure, but
requiring autofoo/CMake in source tarballs.
Cheers,
Balint
