Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
>> that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
>>
>
> I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
> separate build systems is the best approach in the long term. I think
> CMake[1] is an interesting alternative: it would allow us to generate
> both makefiles and MSVC .proj's from a single set of master build files.
>
To add my 2d worth to this: after working on a few very large
projects that built on both Unix and Windows my preference is
to use a single autotools-based build for both, with a script called cccl
that translates cc-style arguments for Microsoft's cl compiler/linker
tool chain (plus Cygwin for the command line utilities, gmake etc).
We have a locally-enhanced version of cccl that's a bit
more capable than the latest public version, I seem to remember.
I've used cmake but don't particularly like it because most everyone
has settled on autotools (for better or worse) as the way to build
big C/C++ projects.
