Difference between revisions of "Talk:Build Tools"
(Re) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I dont think the description here really represents the situation. Both Autotools and Cmake are build configuration utilities not tool chains as such. | I dont think the description here really represents the situation. Both Autotools and Cmake are build configuration utilities not tool chains as such. | ||
| − | + | : Because you are absolutly right, don't ask, just change it. --[[User:Fell|Fell]] ([[User talk:Fell|talk]]) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC) | |
Would it not be better to describe the toolchains as: | Would it not be better to describe the toolchains as: | ||
Autotools->make; #must be used for the documentation builds- used for program builds <v 2.6; | Autotools->make; #must be used for the documentation builds- used for program builds <v 2.6; | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Cmake->make->make; # now used for program and API documentation (V3.2 forward); | Cmake->make->make; # now used for program and API documentation (V3.2 forward); | ||
Cmake->ninja->Make; # alternative program build (API documentation??) (V3.2 forward); | Cmake->ninja->Make; # alternative program build (API documentation??) (V3.2 forward); | ||
| + | :IMHO it belongs in the pages of the respective processes. Else we get too many places to change, if the policy changes. --[[User:Fell|Fell]] ([[User talk:Fell|talk]]) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC) | ||
The other parts of the tool chain here is the compiler system called by the above to compile and libtool to construct the libraries. Should they not be also mentioned | The other parts of the tool chain here is the compiler system called by the above to compile and libtool to construct the libraries. Should they not be also mentioned | ||
| + | : Only for the for the program. For the docs they are xml*, fop, ... So if necessary, they belong in the respective pages. But the "normal user" of this pages will not touch them directly. So I would mention them only on specific troubleshooting pages i.e. ''libtool loads the worng version''... --[[User:Fell|Fell]] ([[User talk:Fell|talk]]) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC) | ||
David Cousens | David Cousens | ||
Latest revision as of 18:28, 28 September 2018
I dont think the description here really represents the situation. Both Autotools and Cmake are build configuration utilities not tool chains as such.
- Because you are absolutly right, don't ask, just change it. --Fell (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Would it not be better to describe the toolchains as: Autotools->make; #must be used for the documentation builds- used for program builds <v 2.6; Cmake->make; # now used for program and API documentation (V3.2 forward); Cmake->ninja; # alternative program build (API documentation??) (V3.2 forward);
or even better if we consider the installation as a separate step from the build itself
Autotools->make->make; #must be used for the documentation builds- used for program builds <v 2.6; Cmake->make->make; # now used for program and API documentation (V3.2 forward); Cmake->ninja->Make; # alternative program build (API documentation??) (V3.2 forward);
- IMHO it belongs in the pages of the respective processes. Else we get too many places to change, if the policy changes. --Fell (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The other parts of the tool chain here is the compiler system called by the above to compile and libtool to construct the libraries. Should they not be also mentioned
- Only for the for the program. For the docs they are xml*, fop, ... So if necessary, they belong in the respective pages. But the "normal user" of this pages will not touch them directly. So I would mention them only on specific troubleshooting pages i.e. libtool loads the worng version... --Fell (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
David Cousens
