Re: cmake/build.mk

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

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 03:47:06PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> 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.

Sure, that's fine with me.
 Thomas