Related
We are starting up a Unix development engagement and evaluating version control options.
Specific question: Does PVCS deployed on a Unix platform support checking in compiled code from a Unix build environment?
If so, example command perhaps?
Not looking to hear about other SCM systems at this point.
I doubt that PVCS would distinguish between binary and text files. Even if it did, it should support the notion of a binary file.
PVCS apparently doesn't do merging (not as a built-in operation), so there really isn't much that it needs to do to "support" checking in of unix binaries.
You may have problems dealing with the file permissions, however I would consider that to be a security feature - the files shouldn't be marked as executable unless you intend them to be executed, a deploy script would more than achieve this.
That said. Semantically, it is problematic asking if it "supports" checking in of unix binaries: Can a system that happens to allow such files to be checked in be claimed to "support" those files if it provides no features that ease management of those specific files, as distinct from other types of files?
Unfortunately their website is so full of marketing information that it is next to impossible to find out this information. Seriously pick a different VCS if at all possible. Heck, even Perforce would be a better choice, they provide tools for almost every current operating system and provide many levels of documentation. (Personally, I'm inclined to recommend Git, although Perforce would be a better choice in this case if you are more interested in versioning many binary files)
We are looking for adequate build tool for a desktop GUI application to be written in D (using Qt toolkit), consisting of several native libraries, using 3rd party C-lib(s). It has to build on Linux (native development) and Mac as well on Windows. We might adopt Code::Blocks as IDE.
Waf already has support for D language, while CMake is just receiving it cmaked2.
CMake uses special language, while Waf is pure Python...Otoh, CMake, via CPack, can produce packages in several formats as well as GUI installer for e.g. Windoze.
Any pro/cons and what would you use?
We excluded Scons for speed reasons and autoconf, so, please, advice against CMake/waf only.
Update: Although not received any reply here, we were researching in other places, did some reading & testing and decided to use Waf (1.6. release is just around the corner).
Waf is very fast and has been chosen as the build system for Samba (http://samba.org/). It is also used by many proprietary projects because it lets you do crazy things that are impossible in Make/CMake.
I would/do use CMake
I've seen CMake used in many more places than Waf. Most importantly the KDE project is now using CMake.
I did some research on google code search:
there are 2,097 wscript files in various opensource projects
compared to 36,914 CMakeLists.txt.
So CMake is definitely more popular.
I also tried to use google trends to see which was gaining more traction CMake or Waf. I wasn't succesful as Waf is too general at term (ie Wife Acceptance Factor), and "Waf build" doesn't show up in google trends at all.
Scons is known to have terrible performance issues. As Waf is a Scons derived I worry about its performance.
Lastly, CMake has terrible syntax and Waf has beautiful syntax. Since you're going with D it looks like you're willing to go off the beaten path for superior tools. In that case Waf may be the perfect fit.
This question is for experienced Unix/Linux developers.
If you have found that you like Mac OS X better than *nix as a development platform, why is that?
I know that hardware configuration is more convenient and graphics are generally more polished, but I'm not referring to those things. I'm asking specifically about functionality related to software development.
Also, do the benefits still apply if you are mainly targeting Windows or Unix/Linux?
For most purposes, OS X is Unix. Aside from Xcode (which I personally don't care for), there isn't really anything there to make it better or worse than any other Unix-like system for development.
Most of the typical tools, libraries, languages, and interfaces are there, you'll even be using GCC for C/C++ work. As long as you're not developing against Apple/OS X-specific interfaces like Cocoa, you are developing on Unix.
I use OS X because it just works, thus not interfering with my development, not because it has magical fairy dust that makes it better than any other Unix for development.
I love Apple as a dev platform because I get all the power of the *nix commandline as well as Apple's developers tools (XCode).
The additional software/hardware polish, and quality of third party software make it all that much more enjoyable.
Mac OS X is not better than a Unix environment, it is a Unix environment: http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1190p.pdf
I'd go as far as saying it's probably the most used Unix, considering it's also in all iPod Touch and iPhones.
(As far as I'm aware, Linux isn't a certified Unix, but I may be wrong, perhaps a distribution/vendor went through that process.)
Sometimes, for professional reasons, you just have to have tools that are compatible with what your boss or customers use. This often includes proprietary tools like MS Office, whether you want it or not (OpenOffice can't always deal perfectly with Word documents). OSX provides this intermediate ground, where the developers can also be users or closer to their user base.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
A few years ago I looked into using some build system that isnt Make, and tools like CMake and SCons seemed pretty primitive. I'd like to find out if the situation has improved. So, under the following criteria, what is currently the best build tool:
platform agnostic: should work on windows, linux, mac
language agnostic: should have built-in support for common things like building C/C++ and other static langs. I guess it doesn't need to support the full autotools suite.
extensible: I need to be able to write rules to generate files, like from restructuredText, latex, custom formats, etc. I dont really care what language I have to write the rules in, but I would prefer a real language rather than a DSL.
I would prefer to avoid writing any XML by hand, which I think for example ant requires.
Freely available (preferably open source)
The term "best" is slightly subjective, but I think answers can be rated objectively by the criteria above.
I'd definitively put my vote up for premake. Although it is not as powerful as it's older brothers, it's main advantage is absurd simplicity and ease of use. Makes writing multi-compiler, multi-platform code a breeze, and natively generates Visual Studio solutions, XCode projects, Makefiles, and others, without any additional work needed.
So, judging purely by the criteria set forth in the question, the build system that seems like the best fit is probably waf - pure Python, provides support for C++ and other languages, general, powerful, not a DSL.
However, from my personal experience, I prefer CMake for C++ projects. (I tried CMake, SCons, and waf, and liked them in roughly that order). CMake is a general solution, but it has built-in support for C++ that makes it nicer than a more generic solution when you're actually doing C++.
CMake's build model for C++ is more declarative and less imperative, and thus, to me, easier to use. The CMake language syntax isn't great, but a declarative build with odd syntax beats an imperative build in Python. Of the three, CMake also seems to have the best support for "advanced" things like precompiled headers. Setting up precompiled headers reduced my rebuild time by about 70%.
Other pluses for CMake include decent documentation and a sizable community. Many open source libraries have CMake build files either in-tree or provided by the CMake community. There are major projects that already use CMake (OGRE comes to mind), and other major projects, like Boost and LLVM, are in the process of moving to CMake.
Part of the issue I found when experimenting with build systems is that I was trying to build a NPAPI plugin on OS X, and it turns out that very few build systems are set up to give XCode the exact combination of flags required to do so. CMake, recognizing that XCode is a complex and moving target, provides a hook for manually setting commands in generated XCode projects (and Visual Studio, I think). This is Very Smart as far as I'm concerned.
Whether you're building a library or an application may also determine which build system is best. Boost still uses a jam-based system, in part because it provides the most comprehensive support for managing build types that are more complex than "Debug" and "Release." Most boost libraries have five or six different versions, especially on Windows, anticipating people needing compatible libraries that link against different versions of the CRT.
I didn't have any problems with CMake on Windows, but of course your mileage may vary. There's a decent GUI for setting up build dependencies, though it's clunky to use for rebuilds. Luckily there's also a command-line client. What I've settled on so far is to have a thin wrapper Makefile that invokes CMake from an objdir; CMake then generates Makefiles in the objdir, and the original Makefile uses them to do the build. This ensures that people don't accidentally invoke CMake from the source directory and clutter up their repository. Combined with MinGW, this "CMake sandwich" provides a remarkably consistent cross-platform build experience!
Of course that depends on what your priorities are. If you are looking primarily for ease of use, there are at least two new build systems that hook into the filesystem to automatically track dependencies in a language agnostic fashion.
One is tup:
http://gittup.org/tup/
and the other is fabricate:
http://code.google.com/p/fabricate/
The one that seems to be the best performing, portable, and mature (and the one I have actually used) is tup. The guy who wrote it even maintains a toy linux distro where everything is a git submodule, and everything (including the kernel) is build with tup. From what I've read about the kernel's build system, this is quite an accomplishment.
Also, Tup cleans up old targets and other cruft, and can automatically maintain your .gitignore files. The result is that it becomes trivial to experiment with the layout and names of your targets, and you can confidently jump between git revisions without rebuilding everything. It's written in C.
If you know haskell and are looking for something for very advanced use cases, check out shake:
http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/shake/
Update: I haven't tried it, but this new "buildsome" tool also hooks into the filesystem, and was inspired by tup, so is relevant:
https://github.com/ElastiLotem/buildsome
CMake
CMake is an extensible, open-source
system that manages the build process
in an operating system and in a
compiler-independent manner.
Gradle seems to match all the criteria mentioned above.
It's a build system which took the best of Maven and Ant combined. To me, that's the best.
The Selenium project is moving over to Rake, not because its the best but because it handles multiple languages slightly better than all the other build tools and is cross platform (developed in Ruby).
All build tools have their issues and people learn to live with them. Something that runs on the JVM tends to be really good for building apps so Ant, Maven (i know its hideous), Ivy, Rake
Final Builder is well known in Windows world
smooth build matches most of your requirements.
platform agnostic: yes, it's written in java
language agnostic: it doesn't support c/c++t yet, only java but it is extensible via plugins written in java so adding more compilers support is not a problem
extensible: yes, you can implement smooth function via java plugin, you can also create smooth function via defining it as expression built of other smooth functions.
I would prefer to avoid writing any XML: you won't see a single line of it in smooth build
Freely available: yes, Apache 2 license
disclosure: I'm the author of smooth build.
One thing I've always wondered about is how software patches work. A lot of software seems to just release new versions on their binaries that need to be installed over older versions, but some software (operating systems like Windows in particular) seem to be able to release very small patches that correct bugs or add functionality to existing software.
Most of the time the patches I see can't possibly replace entire applications, or even small files that are used within applications. To me it seems like the actual binary is being modified.
How are these kinds of patches actually implemented? Could anyone point me to any resources that explain how this works, or is it just as simple as replacing small components such as linked libraries in an application?
I'll probably never need to do a deployment in this manner, but I am curious to find out how it works. If I'm correct in my understanding that patches can really modify only portions of binary files, is this possible to do in .NET? If it is I'd like to learn it since that's the framework I'm most familiar with and I'd like to understand how it works.
This is usually implemented using binary diff algorithms -- diff the most recently released version against the new code. If the user's running the most recent version, you only need to apply the diff. Works particularly well against software, because compiled code is usually pretty similar between versions. Of course, if the user's not running the most recent version you'll have to download the whole thing anyway.
There are a couple implementations of generic binary diff algorithms: bsdiff and xdelta are good open-source implementations. I can't find any implementations for .NET, but since the algorithms in question are pretty platform-agnostic it shouldn't be too difficult to port them if you feel like a project.
If you are talking about patching windows applications then what you want to look at are .MSP files. These are similar to an .MSI but just patch and application.
Take a look at Patching and Upgrading in the MSDN documents.
What an .MSP files does is load updated files to an application install. This typically is updated dll's and resource files, but could include any file.
In addition to patching the installed application, the repair files located in C:\WINDOWS\Installer are updated as well. Then if the user selects "Repair" from Add / Remove programs the updated patch files are used as well.
I'm thinking that the binary diff method discussed by John Millikin must be used in other operating systems. Although you could make it work in windows it would be somewhat alien.