Re: [Help-glpk] Help-glpk] [Fwd: CMAKE build environment (and version control)]

[Andrew Makhorin]

Hi Alpar,

I must say that you puzzled me :+), because I've never thought to use
something other than GNU autotools. I asked GNU mentors (please see a
copy of their answers below) and decided not to change anything.
However, if you think that having cmake stuff in the glpk distribution
would be useful, I can include it in the same way as batch scripts and
makefiles for MS Visual Studio.

> > As a rule MS Windows should not be considered at all, because it is
> > proprietary software.
> > 
> 
> :)
> 
> Then, why on Earth are those .bat files there in the GLPK release? Why
> the precompiled MS Windows package was even mentioned in the last
> release announcement?
> 
> It may be that MS Windows should not be considered at all, but I
> really
> happy to consider the MS Windows users, no matter what makes them
> using
> that OS. I think Xypron is also worth "being considered" for his
> efforts
> to make the precompiled binary.

Sorry, probably I expressed my thought inexactly. I meant that there
should be no special efforts on developing something that concerns MS
Windows only, at least for GNU packages. Glpk distribution includes
makefiles for building the package with Visual Studio, but this is for
user's convenience, not more. I didn't mean, of course, that MS Windows
should not be used (at all).


Best regards,

Andrew Makhorin



From: Alfred M. Szmidt <address@hidden>
Reply-To: address@hidden
To: Andrew Makhorin <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
Subject: Re: using cmake in gnu package
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:12:22 -0500

   > If the program supports the GNU build system (./configure && make
   > all install check uninstall) I don't see the problem, not all GNU
   > packages use autoconf/automake.
   > 
   > Though, I'm curious as to the claim that cmake is `more flexible,
   > convenient, powerful, able to solve many package integration
   > problems'.  Could you explain in what autoconf/automake is
   > missing, or what problem you are experiencing?  (I'd be happy to
   > help with any problems you have)

   GNU autotools are completely sufficient to me and I see no reason
   to switch to another tool. However, maybe I am wrong somewhere,
   because I don't have a global understanding of the issue; I don't
   know, for example, how using cmake may affect building glpk binary
   distribution for GNU/Linux.

If you are happy, then that is the most important thing.  You are the
maintainer after all; and for the users, they know the GNU build
system.  So everyone is happy :-)

   Please look at the following discussion on the help-glpk list:
   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-glpk/2010-12/msg00037.html
   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-glpk/2010-12/msg00044.html
   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-glpk/2010-12/msg00045.html
   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-glpk/2010-12/msg00051.html

Thanks.

Alpar raises a few issues,

 - Including GLPK in the source tree of another project.

This can easily be done using autoconf, from
`(autoconf)Subdirectories':

> -- Macro: AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS (DIR ...)
>     Make `AC_OUTPUT' run `configure' in each subdirectory DIR in the
>     given whitespace-separated list. [...]

 - Cross compilation.

Not sure what Alpar refers to here, autoconf/automake are ideally
suited for that.

 - Windows support.

Both autoconf and automake work on Windows, and you can cross compile
for mingw or cygwin.  Supporting Windows shouldn't be a priority, but
if someone supplies patches that don't cause havoc then there is never
harm in applying them.

 - cmake allowing for third-party projects in a source tree

This seems to be a moot point, since GLPK can be easily tweaked for
that.

Cheers, Alfred.



From: Mark Galassi <address@hidden>
To: Andrew Makhorin <address@hidden>
Cc: Mark Galassi <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: using cmake in gnu package
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:25:40 -0700

    Andrew> GNU autotools are completely sufficient to me and I see no
    Andrew> reason to switch to another tool. However, maybe I am wrong
    Andrew> somewhere, because I don't have a global understanding of
    Andrew> the issue; I don't know, for example, how using cmake may
    Andrew> affect building glpk binary distribution for GNU/Linux.

Andrew, it is good that you are doing due diligence in understanding the
issues.

I would recommend that you not worry about cmake.  You might have run in
to someone who is a cmake fan and feels that any projects s/he is
involved with need to be converted.  But if autotools work for you as
the maintainer, then you are doing fine.  Autotools allows easy packaing
for debian and RPM distributions, which takes care of the end users.

But I would point out that the comment:

> As a rule MS Windows should not be considered at all, because it is
> proprietary software.

is not quite correct.  If people have to use a proprietary operating
system, we can still make their life slightly better by having them use
free software on top of that.  Before the Linux kernel was available we
would use GNU systems on top of a SunOS kernel, for example, and life
was much better for that.  But it is true that Windows compatibility
should not get in the way of excellence on free software platforms.