Re: [GD-DEVEL] GD build process

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Chris Reuter <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Pierre Joye) writes:
>
>> hi Chris!
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Chris Reuter <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> I notice that there are two sets of build scripts in GD: one for GNU
>>> autoconf and one for CMake.  Which of these is the preferred method for
>>> building GD?
> [...]
>
>> cmake should work. Which problem(s) have you met?
>
> Beyond having to deal with Windows, the current one is that cmake
> doesn't generate gd.h from gd.h.in.

It does generate it on Windows? Hm. I have to fix that then.

> Actually, I'll look into that.  I'd like to get rid of gd.h.in in favor
> of moving the generated stuff to a small corner of the program.
> (Basically, provide functions that return the version info and turn the
> #defines into calls to them.  This means the version will be correct in
> programs using GD when the libgd shared library is updated.  It also
> reduces the complexity of the build process and makes the code a little
> easier to hack on.)

Makes sense :) Don't we have one already in 2.1?

>> We maintain both. autotools are used for linux (distros, embedded
>> systems or cross compilation). Cmake is used on all supported
>> platforms and windows.
>
> Hmmm.  Would we lose anything by ditching autotools?  If cmake handles
> everything, it might make sense to switch to just that, rather than
> maintain two build systems.

We need autotools for many supported systems. CMake does not work for them.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org