[CMake] Copying cmake generated files to another machine

[steve naroff]

Thanks for your comments Oscar.

Our current thinking is to post process the cmake generated files and  
remove all the absolute paths (since the project files are simply  
text). Since cmake is a black box to me (and I am unfamiliar with it's  
generated 'code'), it's unclear if this a 'good' idea? Or will I bump  
into other gotcha's?

Any advice is appreciated...you have a lot more experience with this  
than I do!

snaroff

On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:10 AM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:

> Hello Steve and Eric.
>
> Eric Noulard <eric.noulard at gmail.com>
> writes:
>
>> 2009/12/6 steve naroff <snaroff at apple.com>:
>>>>
>>>> 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).
>>
>> Sorry for being picky but you don't "require a pure source".
>>
>> You want to have the file used by your target
>> build system (Makefile or any other "project file") to be shipped  
>> with
>> your source tree.
>
> In the past, LLVM/clang had a manually crafted Visual Studio project
> file. That worked fine for the purposes of the OP. It was "pure  
> source"
> because you obtained it directly from the svn repository along the
> project source code and it was ready to build with VS, no intermediate
> steps required. The VS project file was removed and this is causing
> problems to the OP, because the "pure source" requirement is imposed
> upon him by somebody else.
>
> [snip]
>
>>> 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).
>
> For "the others" this would require:
>
> 1. build cmake.
> 2. invoke cmake for configuring LLVM/clang.
> 3. invoke VS for building the LLVM/clang.
>
> You can solve 1&2 with a .bat file. With cmake 2.8, you can build LLVM
> from the .bat file too (with the new "cmake --build" feature, IIRC),  
> but
> I guess that "them" are having too much fun building LLVM with the VS
> IDE :-)
>
>> I see. Personnally I have another point of view regarding this.  Once
>> I decided to go for a CMake build system for my project, I consider
>> CMake to be part of the compiler suite.
>>
>> If I require a compiler to be installed for compiling the source of  
>> my
>> project I do require CMake to be installed too.
>
> That is very sensible but, unfortunately, the OP can't do much about  
> it.
>
> [snip]
>
> -- 
> Óscar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake