Re: cmake/build.mk

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 05:52:41PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:16:53PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> >  > I've created a devel/cmake/build.mk (to match devel/meson/build.mk).
> >
> > In the thread about -j args I'd proposed calling these "tool.mk",
> > which I think is slightly preferable (due to the implicit connection
> > to TOOL_DEPENDS, relationship to things like lang/python/tool.mk, etc.)
> > but I'm not going to push any harder than making the suggestion :-)
> 
> Suggestion seconded.  I had some discomfort about it not feeling like
> USE_TOOLS, but couldn't articulate why so didn't say anything.
> 
> It almost  seems like USE_TOOLS should be how you say it, like you would
> with gnu autocond that can source the tools.mk?

I thought about this, and I disagree.

CMake is not a tool in the way that you put it in $PATH and then it's
used, and that's it. When you want to use CMake, all the usual steps
need to be changed (configure/build/install) - it's a complete build
system, like autoconf.

If I added "autoconf" support today, I would probably add a mk
fragment as well - not sure what I would call it, but the main effect
would be to add a 'pre-configure' target that runs 'autoreconf' - the
configure/build/install steps would be the same.

Additionally, there's prior art with meson, which also changes all the
steps (configure/build/install). So I think the "build.mk" name is
more suitable.

Cheers,
 Thomas