On 08/24/2012 04:05 PM, Kent Williams wrote: > There's a couple of things about this script, useful as it is: > > 1. IIRC it downloads the minimal set of prerequisites. Wouldn't be bad > to have it optionally grab the optional prerequisites. Yes; patches welcome. > 2. It uses wget. At this point I'm not sure if wget or curl are more > common; on OS X I had to rewrite the wget commands as curl commands. wget was the lowest common denominator; that's why it was used. OS X is really missing wget? Argh. Patches welcome. > I work on a bunch of large open source projects with many > prerequisites, of which Slicer is a prime example (http://slicer.org). > > Slicer (and any projects my lab originates) use CMake, and > prerequisites are handled by a CMake macro that downloads, configures > and builds all prerequisites. It also subsumes a lot of the nuts & > bolts of autoconf system-sniffing into the 'it just works' background. > It also generates build files for a large set of build tools, like > Make and Visual Studio. > > I can't imagine the GNU development community embracing CMake, for any > number of reasons -- licensing, 'not-invented-here', an existing, > functional build system, CLANG uses it ;-) -- but some of the things > that people find difficult about building and deploying the GNU > compilers are fairly easy with CMake. As the complexity of projects > like GCC grow, it's never the wrong time to try and refine and > simplify the way it's built and deployed. In this case, I think that would be overkill. Besides, I've always hated build tools that download things, and I suspect that you'll find that opinion is not uncommon among gcc developers. Andrew.
