Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: >> 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. Fair points and I'm ok with it. But then I think it should be separated with a blank line from buildlink3 files and precede them, because it's changing the build and demanding a 'host tool' be present, vs things compiled for the target.
Description: PGP signature