1 |
David Haller <gentoo@×××××××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> autotools is _by far_the best both from a users and a packagers view. |
3 |
|
4 |
I do not agree. Its main advantage is that it is compatible with |
5 |
most existing unix systems (but I am already not so sure whether |
6 |
this also holds if you also want to compile for windows, powerpc, |
7 |
etc.) |
8 |
|
9 |
> cmake [...] qmake |
10 |
|
11 |
I agree, these are horrible. The best build system currently |
12 |
appears to be meson. |
13 |
|
14 |
> equivalent to "./configure --help" |
15 |
|
16 |
For meson, it is "cat meson_options.txt", and there is a clear |
17 |
distinction between general options and project specific ones. |
18 |
|
19 |
> transparent and easily hackable |
20 |
|
21 |
Hacking autotools is a nightmare: Things are often hidden in |
22 |
subprojects, sometimes combined with project specific hacks, |
23 |
generating/updating necessary configure files somewhere within the |
24 |
projects tree etc. |
25 |
And after each change you have to run autoreconf, often with |
26 |
compatibility problems of autoconf/automake/gettext/... versions etc. |
27 |
|
28 |
With meson, there is an absolutely strict separation between |
29 |
the distributed files and the generated/output files which are |
30 |
always in a fresh dir (and thus are _always_ produced). |
31 |
When hacking up, you need to modify only the *.meson files |
32 |
and do not have to worry about re-generating any other data. |
33 |
|
34 |
This sounds like I am a meson fanboy. I am not; actually, I dislike |
35 |
a lot of its design decisions. But compared to autotools, cmake, |
36 |
and qmake, it did a lot of things right. |