This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: Feedback from GSL folks on libflame 4.0
On 02/22/2010 04:27 PM, Brian Gough wrote:
As Robert says, it's a question of standardisation. I have nothing
against cmake, on a purely techical level it may be better but
autotools is the defacto standard and that is worth more in practice.
I'm entirely sympathetic with the argument that existing standards are
very valuable and may trump technical advantages in the end. I don't
think the case for autotools being "standard" and cmake being
"non-standard" are so clear, however. Let's look at the other
mathematical libraries I deal with on a regular basis:
1) FFTW
2) LAPACK
3) PETSc ( http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/ )
4) Triinos ( http://trilinos.sandia.gov/ )
What do they use for build systems?
1) autotools
2) Custom makefiles
3) Custom complex build system
4) cmake
No clear winner there. Let's look at some major components of my linux
installation:
1) Linux kernel
2) GNU utilities
3) Gnome
4) KDE
What doe they use for build systems?
1) Custom makefiles
2) autotools
3) autotools
4) cmake
Of course, this isn't a detailed survey. I assume autotools would have
the numerical advantage over all other options if a detailed analysis
was made. The point is, however, that many projects don't use autotools
and that a signficant number use cmake. I don't think the "standard"
argument is strong enough to simply trump any technical argument. Of
course, the technical argument still needs to be made.
If you were to argue that the current level of predominance of autotools
means that autotools is the only acceptable build system for GSL, I
think I could make a similar argument that the current level of
predominance of Fortran in scientific computing means that Fortran is
the only acceptable implementation language for GSL.
--Jim Amundson