Anope IRC Services

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Poll

Does your shell provider offer cmake ?

Yes they offer it now!
- 9 (34.6%)
No
- 8 (30.8%)
No but they might consider it
- 6 (23.1%)
No they refused when I asked
- 3 (11.5%)

Total Members Voted: 26


Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Anope and CMake  (Read 13050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave Robson

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
Anope and CMake
« on: December 17, 2008, 09:30:32 PM »

Does your current shell host offer CMake ?  Anope are looking at changing the build system to cmake, the advantages for Anope are numerous, however, the big downside is that cmake would be required in order to install anope on *nix. 

This poll is to judge the level of support / enthusiasm shell providers and users have for such a move, so please take the time to check and vote!

You can check by simply logging into your shell and typing:
Code: [Select]
cmake

if you see:
Code: [Select]
cmake version 2.4-patch 6
Usage
etc....

Then vote yes!

If you see:
Code: [Select]
-sh: cmake: command not found

then please vote no.


Remember kids, your vote does count ;)
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 09:33:39 PM by Rob »
Logged

Naram Qashat

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 192
    • CBX's Sprite Animations
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2008, 09:35:30 PM »

I'm also going to point something out (as I'm the one who is making the push for CMake).  If your shell provider doesn't have CMake and you'll have to vote no, that won't stop you from building Anope, as CMake can potentially be installed to your home directory independent of whether your shell provider offers it.

Also, if your shell provider does have CMake, please provide the version.  I want to see what versions everyone is running, because as it stands, I've been developing the build system using CMake 2.6 but I have seen that 2.4 is still in use on a lot of systems that do have it, so I will have to make sure things work with that.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 09:51:34 PM by CyberBotX »
Logged

Amanda Folson

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • O_O
    • ZomgIRC
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2008, 09:37:31 PM »

2 said they wouldnt, one just doesnt have it.

I cant vote 3 times :<

EDIT: One said he would if it were requested. So 2 hell no's and a maybe :P
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 09:43:09 PM by Amanda »
Logged

deiks

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 139
  • Shizle my nizle
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2008, 09:39:53 PM »

What is difference between make & cmake?

Is it just way of compiling like gmake ...
Logged

Naram Qashat

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 192
    • CBX's Sprite Animations
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2008, 09:52:19 PM »

[dx], CMake is similar to (but not exactly like) the use of the autotools programs, autoconf and automake.  The Makefiles are generated and then run through make or gmake.
Logged

Namegduf

  • Contributor
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2008, 09:55:41 PM »

None of my four shells have CMake. Would be willing to install it into a home directory and generally suggest using it anyway (good shell providers might switch when Anope starts using it), but I'm the sort of crazy person who has Python and a load of other things installed that way, too. Although not GnuTLS.

EDIT: If it's of interest, two are FreeBSD, two are Linux.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 09:57:20 PM by Namegduf »
Logged

dwr

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2008, 09:56:02 PM »

yeah, but you don't have to keep autoconf and automake on server instead of cmake ;p
Logged

Naram Qashat

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 192
    • CBX's Sprite Animations
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2008, 05:04:43 AM »

I'll admit that it's a bit more work to have CMake be installed before being able to build Anope.  However, as far as I can tell, no one on the Anope team (myself included) knows Autotools well enough to have it be up to the tasks that CMake was able to accomplish with how I've set it up.

My personal opinion is that the move to CMake is worth it, as having it installed is really the only extra requirement for the users, and it is a huge help on the developers.  For the user side, they only really need to run Config which acts as a wrapper to CMake, just like it used to be a wrapper to configure.  For the developers, the added benefits include ease of cross-platform support for both *nix and Windows, and automatic header file dependency calculation.  For both users and developers, using CMake allows for both in-source building (as it was already) or out-of-source building (a separate directory to build in without cluttering up the source directory with the built files).

I'll also point out that I have used Autotools in the past.  I found it hard to accomplish things with it.  I've only been using CMake for a week but I was able to make the build system under it be pretty close to the Autotools system that was in use before.  And this was even though I'd never used CMake before and even though I was having problems in certain areas that I was able to figure out and work with.

That all having been said, if anyone feel they are competent enough with Autotools to be able to create a build system using it that can be comparable to the CMake solution I have come up with and could possibly run alongside CMake existing, I invite someone to do so.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 05:14:30 AM by CyberBotX »
Logged

Charles Kingsley

  • Contributor
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1405
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2008, 06:32:51 AM »

We have contacted 30 shell providers and I will post back once I've had some more responses but it should be noted that one of the largest shell providers I'm aware of has already responded in that they don't offer it but would do so if it was requested by a customer.
Logged

Andrew B.

  • o.O
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 35
    • Keyboard-Failure
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2008, 05:44:19 AM »

I'm also going to point something out (as I'm the one who is making the push for CMake).  If your shell provider doesn't have CMake and you'll have to vote no, that won't stop you from building Anope, as CMake can potentially be installed to your home directory independent of whether your shell provider offers it.

Also, if your shell provider does have CMake, please provide the version.  I want to see what versions everyone is running, because as it stands, I've been developing the build system using CMake 2.6 but I have seen that 2.4 is still in use on a lot of systems that do have it, so I will have to make sure things work with that.

One thing that should be considered, for people who don't have it pre-installed by their shell providers, is how much space consumption will be consumed by a services installation, statistics databases, services databases (.db/SQL?), perhaps an IRCd (I know my network doesn't dedicate a shell for Services), and cmake all in the home directory. Providers still do not offer decent space for shells.
Logged
Andrew Berquist,

irc.kbfail.net

Naram Qashat

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 192
    • CBX's Sprite Animations
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2008, 01:26:31 PM »

I guess I don't know how much space most shell providers give since I don't use a shell, but CMake is only 20MB installed, so unless a shell provider is only giving someone 100MB or something, I can't see that being a big issue.
Logged

Jens Voss

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2008, 03:49:00 PM »

because i'm my own shell provider, i have no problem installing cmake. :-)

But:

Quote
CMake Error: This project requires version 2.4.4 of CMake.  You are running version 2.4.0.

My current distribution offers only 2.4.0 as rpm packet.
I have to download and compile it for myself if i want to use it.


Logged

Jan Milants

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2008, 03:55:45 PM »

even debian stable 'etch' has 2.4.5... and debian isn't exactly known for including latest versions of software...  ::)
Logged
If you like me donate coins to 1FBmZVT4J8WAUMHKqpWhgNVj3XXnRN1cCk :)

Mike.XIII

  • Guest
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2008, 03:30:33 AM »

I'm on a VPS, Ubuntu Intrepid.
It wasn't installed so I compiled it just to have in case I need it in the future. cmake 2.6.2
Logged

Naram Qashat

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 192
    • CBX's Sprite Animations
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2008, 04:15:36 PM »

DukePyrolator, I'm editing the files so they should work under CMake 2.4.0, I just have to also test all versions between 2.4.0 and 2.4.4 to see what else breaks.  For one thing, CMake before 2.4.4 won't be able to test if g++ can use the -pipe flag (which isn't a big deal) and also won't be able to sort the lists of things such as the sources and such (again, not a big deal, although a little annoying).
Logged

SNU

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
    • http://www.firstclassirc.com
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2008, 08:44:52 PM »

my very old box runs on debian sarge. it has cmake version 2.0.5.
Logged

Naram Qashat

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 192
    • CBX's Sprite Animations
Re: Anope and CMake
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2008, 10:33:53 PM »

I'm not going to make it so this works on anything older than CMake 2.4.0, some nice build functionality is already lost going that far back.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up