Need a library that has to come from /software? Also easy - though I forget whether I usually did this via like -enable-libthingy=. ![]() CC=/software/gcc/4.8/bin/gcc CXX=/software/gcc/4.8/bin/g++ (hey 4.8 was new!) passed to configure. If I needed for example a more recent compiler version, that was always easy just. Knowing how to build was always trivial, it's always configure then make then make install. configure -prefix=/software/something-cool/1.2.3. For example, I always needed to specify an installation directory, and that was always easy with autotools projects - just. These have a really easy and uniform way of doing the various things I needed to do. For anonymization purposes I'll say that share got mounted at /software/.įrom the perspective of someone using one of these systems, I was actually most happy with autotools projects. In university the computer science department had a network share where volunteers maintained installations of various programs and libraries that people had need or want of I was one of these volunteers. ![]() I'll give a perspective of someone who has built a fair bit of software for Linux. Things like integrating continuous testing or packaging resources/platform deployment can be a lot more tricky if you can't lean on other people's experiences, and the risks associated with the one person who knows the specifics of the build system in detail leaving a project become that much more pronounced. Ideally you won't be spending much time in your build language, since you'd rather be developing library/application code, so having a wide body of searchable info on more complex tasks becomes that much more important. My experience with lesser known build platforms is that they can quickly become a source of technical debt if you need to do any more than the basics with them. It would also let you continue to use visual studio as an editor, with the associated available debugging/refactoring tools, which I personally find really handy, since it can generate project files for you to use. It's not perfect, but it does a good job of giving you the ability to cross-compile and deploy to many different targets. Notable mentions that have popped up a couple times Meson, QBS+QT creator seems an interesting choice. I wanted to know what build systems people are using, the reason behind their choice, pros, cons, etc.Įdit: A lot of people suggesting CMake as close to an industry standard as we have, will definitely be researching that. So, I'm looking for a build system that can build for Windows and Linux (I'm currently using Ubuntu for the Linux testing, so I'm not sure if that will affect whether or not it will work on non-gnome based Linux distros) with the potential to add MacOS later via MoltenVK. ![]() ![]() I did do a year in industry as part of my course, and they did use a different build system, but I wasn't really taught how it worked or how to change parts of it etc, more just "and you type this and it just works". This has led me to realise that university has made me very Visual Studio dependent and this is something I would like to rectify. I've finished university about a month ago and I'm now working on a personal project utilising C++ and Vulkan.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |