[CMake] Copying cmake generated files to another machine

[steve naroff]

Thanks for the quick response...comments below:

On Dec 6, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:

> 2009/12/6 steve naroff <snaroff at apple.com>:
>> Hi, I work on llvm/clang (a client of cmake).
>> For development, cmake is wonderful (no big issues).
>> For deployment, cmake's inability to copy it's generated project  
>> files to
>> another machine is causing us some grief. The scenario is quite  
>> simple: I
>> want to copy the llvm/clang source tree over another machine  
>> (running the
>> same OS/tools) and build it *without* having to rerun cmake and  
>> generate
>> *new* project files. Without this ability, it requires the target  
>> machine
>> have cmake installed (which isn't convenient for some clients that  
>> want to
>> build/use/master the result of the llvm/clang build). What was a 1  
>> step
>> process (open the project file) now becomes a 3 step process  
>> (install cmake,
>> run it to generate the project file, open the project file).
>> Last time I checked (about a year ago) the usage model I've  
>> outlined wasn't
>> supported. Is this still the case? Is there any workaround?
>> Thanks for any help with this,
>
> I think that the topic has been discussed several times and each time
> (I remember)
> the answer was, this not possible (in general) to make cmake produce  
> a build
> tree (i.e. project file) which may copied and re-used without CMake.
>
> There is the CMAKE_SUPPRESS_REGENERATION which may be used
> to suppress the "build tree / project file" regeneration (which
> implies CMake usage)
> but I think this does not work if your build tree is not exactly the  
> same on
> the target machine (i.e. full absolute path to file is the same).
> There is the CMAKE_USE_RELATIVE_PATHS option but Bill said recently
> that it should be deprecated:
> http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2009-November/033456.html
>

I've tried using this in the past (without much success).

> However being able to somehow "prepare" a build tree and give it to a
> customer/user
> seems to be important for several people.
> May be we can achieve this **without** requiring the fact that CMake
> should not be run.
>
> May be we can think of "packaging" CMake itself along with the build  
> tree?

Packaging the binaries isn't considered acceptable (we need a "pure"  
source distribution with no binary files).

A spin on your idea is to package the CMake source itself (and build  
it from scratch, prior to building llvm/clang). Unfortunately, this  
approach is quite "heavy" (but may be the cleanest given the  
constraints).

snaroff

> My idea is YOU WON'T HAVE TO **INSTALL** CMake but when you
> unzip your build tree you'll get:
>   - the source tree
>   - the pre-configured build tree
>   - the cmake binary folder.
>
> Could be something like:
>   MyProject----------Sources
>                  |_____Build
>                  |_____CMake
>
>
> Would the idea fits the need?
>    Potential user may step in and tell us what they think?
> Would it be doable?
>    I think it could be done with some "special" CPack generator
>    but may be CMake developer can tell us what they think of this
> [may be wrong] idea?
>
> With this feature you'll get a "portable" project which contains the
> source tree,
> a preconfigured build tree + some cmake binaries corresponding to the
> build tree.
>
>
> -- 
> Erk
> Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
> http://www.april.org