Re: OT Sick of make, is there a replacement?

in reply to OT Sick of make, is there a replacement?

cmake has been suggested a few times above. I recently(ish) rewrote a nasty old imake-based build system on a program into cmake, and found it a reasonable pleasant experience; managing and expanding it since then has failed to be totally miserable. I also replaced another custom make-based build system with cmake, and that went smoothly.

Of course, cmake is both much more and somewhat less than a make replacement, so depending on just what you're doing, it may be a godsend or a nightmare. If you're looking purely as a building-this-software-package system, it's probably pretty well suited. If you're using make as a more general scripting / automation solution, maybe not so much.

Comment on Re: OT Sick of make, is there a replacement?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: OT Sick of make, is there a replacement? by syphilis (Archbishop) on Aug 06, 2015 at 06:37 UTC
cmake is both much more and somewhat less than a make replacement My only experience with cmake is as a precursor to make. Whenever I run cmake (eg to build freeglut or plplot libraries), it generates one or more makefiles and the very next command I run is 'make'. I therefore see cmake as an alternative to autotools, not as an alternative to make. Cheers, Rob	[reply]
Re^3: OT Sick of make, is there a replacement? by fullermd (Priest) on Aug 07, 2015 at 00:23 UTC
Sorta. cmake generates makefiles (or other build systems, like ninja), that run (among other things) cmake. So it's not like autotools in that it just spits outs plain makefiles; you need cmake through the whole process, even if you invoke it via make.	[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom