Re: [dsdp-tcf-dev] TCF C agent build system

[Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Alexis Hallé <alexis.halle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working for École Polytechnique de Montréal. We use the TCF
> reference agent as a basis for our remote tracing system, lttng-agent,
> which is implemented as a plugin for the agent. We are trying to
> streamline our own build process, which currently depends on the
> actual source code of the TCF agent. We are trying to get rid of this
> dependency but it is currently impossible, as the headers required for
> plugin development are not installed as part of make install. This
> looks like a bug to me. If the agent exposes an interface to plugins,
> shouldn't it install the relevant headers? I can open a bug report
> about that, but I would also like to open a more general discussion on
> the TCF agent build system.
>
> The current build system allows (partial) installation but not
> uninstallation. It uses uncommon make variables to specify install
> location. The plugins path is hardcoded at compile time. The point I
> am trying to make is that the current system mostly works, but the
> process is not what linux users expect, and in our opinion it's
> hurting usability. I am not saying it's bad, just that it could be
> better.
>
> We think an autotools-based build system would solve these problems
> and provide a solid base for the future. We believe that using a
> somewhat "standard" build system would make the installation process
> easier for users. Services could be enabled or disabled via the
> --enable-xxx or --disable-xxx switches of the configure script. The
> plugins subsystem could be enabled or disabled in the same way. It
> would manage the build options for the different target operating
> systems and most importantly allow easy installation, uninstallation,
> release or packaging of files in a way that is consistent with other
> major open-source projects. I think consistency is the keyword here,
> and autotools is a tried and tested solution.
>
> I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter. As the TCF agent is an
> important piece of our own puzzle, we would be willing to help with
> the conversion of the build system, if you think it is a good idea.

I've personally become a huge fan of CMake. It's being used by more
and more open source projects and includes support for Microsoft
Visual C++ that autotools does not. And we should be able to make it
work for any OS like vxWorks. I just did some work to get it to
support building Android static libraries (which I will be blogging
about in the next couple of days).

Doug.