As the title says, I want to have a build tool that quite much stays out of my way.
I would rather want to specify rules, rather than steps in the build process. I wan to say that I want a binary file with a name placed in the root directory of my project, .o files should go in an obj/tmp dir and the source is in the Source-directory.
I do NOT want to tell it that it is this'n'that file as I keep adding new files rather quickly, it should just scan the source directory (and its subdirectories) looking for Ragel (.rl) and C++ code (.cxx) and doing what's necessary to make all into an executable.
I have looked into many tools, like auto{make,conf,header} (Did not really like that I placed the files it wanted in a subdir of project root, eclipse did not like that either), CMake (Seems like I have to add all source-files myself, and is quite much a variation of autotools in my eyes). I have also read about ant, maven (I am also allergic against XML, it's a good format to serialize data for applications, not so much for humans. I would prefer YAML) and others on WikiPedia. And I have seen tools which seems good but which require to be set up as a webserver which is kinda overkill.
Also, I really need the ability to be able to work offline without internet connection!.
Right now it seems like the best option is to make a little script that finds all .cxx files and write an Unity.cxx and builds that one with G++, which probably is quite fast but to much an ugly hack, I guess.
Bonus Points:
Fast builds
Ability to type build test-1 or something and it will build and directly run test-1
Multi-core builds (i.e. faster builds)
Does really not interrupt my train of thought
CMake is great. It's free, cross-platform, and reasonably well documented. It supports "out of source builds", meaning none of the build files are placed in the source directory. That makes source control a bit easier. It can be set up to find new files (globbing). Fast?...It generates make files...after that it's up to your compiler. Multicore...again, more a function of the compiler. I've used CMake on Windows, Linux, and Mac...it just works.
Another that I haven't tried but have read about and plan to test is premake... http://industriousone.com/sample-script
cake from CoffeeScript is quite good, and I'm writing a similar tool using Lua myself.
CMake and premake Ain't build/maketools, they are build/make-descriptor generators; which may fit a large number of projects that ain't changing too much. But not for project where rapid prototyping is a key.
Right now, I'm doing a project where the browser updates when you hit the save-button in your text editor; You do not need to go to the browser and hit F5 (Which would cause a small delay while the browser load in everything again, and you would most likely loose the state of the page, like say that you have an menu open, and wish to tweak the look of the menu. You would be forced to navigate there again in your RIA).
Related
I work from 2 different machines. One is Windows and the other is Linux. If I alternately work on the same project but switch between both OSes, will I eventually run into compiling errors? I ask because maybe there are standards supported by one but not by the other.
That question is a pretty broad one and it depends, strictly speaking, on your tool chain. If you were to use the same tool chain (e.g. GCC/MinGW or Clang), you'd be minimizing the chance for this class of errors. If you were to use Visual Studio on Windows and GCC or Clang on the Linux side, you'd run into more issues alone because some of the headers differ. So once your program leaves the realm of strict ANSI C (C89) you'll be on your own.
However, if you aren't careful you may run into a lot of other more profane errors, such as the compiler on Linux choking on the line endings if you didn't tell your editor on the Windows side to use these.
Ah, and also keep in mind that if you want to actually cross-compile, GCC may be the best choice and therefore the first part I mentioned in my answer becomes a moot point. GCC is a proven choice on both ends. And given your question it's unlikely that you are trying to write something like a kernel mode driver - which would be fundamentally different.
That may be only if your application use some specific API.
It is entirely possible to write code that works on both platforms, with no issues to compile the code. It is, however, not without some difficulties. Compilers allow you to use non-standard features in the compiler, and it's often hard to do more fancy user interfaces (even if it's still just text) because as soon as you start wanting to do more than "read a line of text as it is entered in a shell", it's into "non-standard" land.
If you do find yourself needing to do more than what the standard C library can do, make sure you isolate those parts of the code into a separate file (or a couple of files, one for Linux/Unix style systems and one for Windows systems).
Using the same compiler (gcc) would help avoiding problems with "compiler B doesn't compile code that works fine in compiler A".
But it's far from an absolute necessity - just make sure you compile the code on both platforms and with all of your "suppoerted" compilers often enough that you haven't dug a very deep hole that is hard to get out of before you discover that "it's not working on the other system". It certainly helps if you have (at least) a virtual machine running the other OS, so you can easily try both variants.
Ideally, you want to set up an automated system, such that when you change the code [and feel that the changes are "complete"], it automatically gets built on both platforms and all compilers you want to use. And if possible, also automatically tested!
I would also seriously consider using version control - that way, when something breaks on one or the other side, you can go back and look at what the code looked like before it stopped working, and (hopefully) find the reason it broke much quicker than "Hmm, I think it's the change I made to foo.c, lets take that out... No, not that one, ok how about the change here..." - at least with version control, you can say "Ok, so version 1234 doesn't work, let's try version 1220 - ok, that works. Now try 1228, still works - so change between 1229 and 1234 - try 1232, ah, it's broken..." No editing files and you can still go to any other version you like with very little difficulty. I have used Mercurial quite a bit, git a little bit, some subversion, and worked on a project in Perforce for a few years. All of these are good - personally, I think I prefer mercurial.
As a side-effect: Most version control systems also deal with filename and line endings in the saner way than doing this manually.
If you combine your version control system with a "automated build and test-system", such as Jenkins, you can get everything very automated. Jenkins is free and runs on both Windows and Linux, and you can use it to automatically build and test your code as and when you submit the code to the version control system.
It will not create a problem until you recompile the source code in the respective OS. If you wanna run your compiled file generated by windows(.exe or .obj), into linux or vice-versa then it will definitely create a problem and wont be possible. But you can move you source code (file with extension .c/.c++) into any of the os. And sometimes it also create problems with different header files, so take care of that also. Best practice is to use single OS for you entire project, avoid multiple os until it is extremely necessary.
I have two questions regarding coding Haskell in Emacs/VIM in Linux :
If one wanted to organise a haskell code base into multiple projects (where files of a given project are stored in a particular folder) then can emacs and vim handle this? The reason is that I have used IDE's before where all the projects are loaded at once into the session, but am not sure how this would work for Emacs/VIM.
Another nice thing about IDEs is that I can go the definition of a function from a given project, even if that function definition is in a separate project (i.e. stored in a separate folder). Can Emacs/VIM handle this?
There was some discussion here : Haskell IDE for Windows?
VIM/Emacs don't care how you organize your files. They're primarily editors, so you can use them to edit files no matter how you lay out your directory structure. Other than that, it's good to follow some standard conventions, or adapt the structure for tools you are going to use. You can have a look at Structure of a Haskell project. It is also convenient to use Cabal to build your project and to manage its dependencies.
VIM/Emacs can use Ctags index files for navigating in your project. See Tags for available options how to create these index files. The indexing tools don't expect any specific project structure, so if you need to navigate in multiple projects, you can just index a directory with multiple projects into one index file.
There's an Emacs mode called Projectile that allows some "project-like" functionality, which might be what you're looking for. I haven't really used it myself (I tend to stick to the old *nix way of just editing files), so I can't give you details, but it can't hurt to check it out.
Not sure if I understood the gist of question correctly. The following is my suggestion concerning the question of management of multiple projects in Vim, without regard to the language employed.
You could take advantage of vim sessions. With a few custom functions/keymappings in your .vimrc you'll be able to keep a separate session file for each project, either in the project directory or the one you'd dedicate for session files.
This is the general how-to: http://vim.runpaint.org/editing/managing-sessions/
And there you'll find a number of scripts that specifically address the issue of handling multiple project-specific sessions: How to auto save vim session on quit and auto reload on start including split window state?
I'm in the process of switching to Linux for development, and I'm puzzled about how to maintain a good FHS compliancy in my programs.
For example, under Windows, I know that all the resources (Bitmaps, audio data, etc.) that my program will need can be found with relative paths from the executable, so its the same if I'm running the program from my development directory, or from an installation (Under "Program Files" for example), the program will be able to locate all its files.
Now, under Linux, I see that usually the executable goes under /usr/local/bin and its resources on /usr/local/share. (And the truth is that I'm not even sure of this)
For convenience reasons (such as version control) I'd like to have all the files pertaining to the project under a same path, say, for example, project/src for the source and project/data for resource files.
Is there any standard or recommended way to let me just rebuild the binary for testing and use the files on the project/data directory, while also being able to locate the files when they are under /usr/local/share?
I thought for example of setting a symlink under /usr/local/share pointing to my resources dir, and then just hardcode that path inside my program, but I feel its quite hackish and not very portable.
Also, I thought of running an install script that copies all the resources to /usr/local/share everytime I change, or add resources, but I also feel its not a good way to do it.
Could anyone tell me or point me to where it tells how this issue is usually resolved?
Thanks!
For convenience reasons (such as version control) I'd like to have all the files pertaining to the project under a same path, say, for example, project/src for the source and project/data for resource files.
You can organize your source tree as you wish — it need not bear any resemblance to the FHS layout desired of installed software.
I see that usually the executable goes under /usr/local/bin and its resources on /usr/local/share. (And the truth is that I'm not even sure of this)
The standard prefix is /usr. /usr/local is for, well, "local installations" as the FHS spec reiterates.
Is there any standard or recommended way to let me just rebuild the binary for testing and use the files on the project/data directory
Definitely. Run ./configure --datadir=$PWD/share for example is the way to point your build to the data files form the source tree (substitute by proper path) and use something like -DDATADIR="'${datadir}'" in AM_CFLAGS to make the value known to the (presumably C) code. (All of that, provided you are using autoconf/automake. Similar options may be available in other build systems.)
This sort of hardcoding is what is used in practice, and it suffices. For a development build within your own working copy, having a hardcoded path should not be a problem, and final builds (those done by a packager) will simply use the standard FHS paths.
You could just test a few locations. For example, first check if you have a data directory within the directory you're currently running the program from. If so, just go ahead and use it. If not, try /usr/local/share/yourproject/data, and so on.
For developing/testing, you can use the data directory within your project folder, and for deploying, use the stuff in /usr/local/share/. Of course, you can test for even more locations (e.g. /usr/share).
Basically the requirement for this method is that you have a function that builds the correct paths for all filesystem accesses. Instead of fopen("data/blabla.conf", "w") use something like fopen(path("blabla.conf"), "w"). path() will construct the correct path from the path determined using the directory tests when the program started. E.g. if the path was /usr/local/share/yourproject/data/, the string returned by path("blabla.conf") would be "/usr/local/share/yourproject/data/blabla.conf" - and there is your nice absolute path.
That's how I'd do it. HTH.
My preferred solution in cases like this is to use a configuration file, along with a command-line option that overrides its location.
For example, a configuration file for a fully deployed application named myapp could reside in /etc/myapp/settings.conf and a part of it could look like this:
...
confdir=/etc/myapp/
bindir=/usr/bin/
datadir=/usr/share/myapp/
docdir=/usr/share/doc/myapp/
...
Your application (or a launcher script) can parse this file to determine where to find the rest of the needed files.
I believe that you can reasonably assume in your code that the location of the configuration file is fixed under /etc/myapp - or any other location specified at compile time. Then you provide a command line option to allow that location to be overridden:
myapp --configfile=/opt/myapp/etc/settings.conf ...
It might also make sense to have options for some of the directory paths as well, so that the user can easily override any of the configuration file settings. This approach has a couple of advantages:
Your users can relocate the application very easily - just by moving the files, modifying the paths in the configuration file and then using e.g. a wrapper script to call the main application with the proper --configfile option.
You can easily support FHS, as well as any other scheme you need to.
While developing, you can have your testsuite use a specially crafted configuration file with the paths being wherever you need them to be.
Some people advocate probing the system at runtime to resolve issues like this. I usually suggest avoiding such solutions for at least the following reasons:
It makes your program non-deterministic. You can never tell at a first glance which configuration file it picks up - especially if you have multiple versions of the application on your system.
At any installation mix-up, the application will remain fat and happy - and so will the user. In my opinion, the application should look at one specific and well-documented location and abort with an informative message if it cannot find what it is looking for.
It's highly unlikely that you will always get everything right. There will always be unexpected rare environments or corner cases that the application will not handle.
Such behaviour is against the Unix philosophy. Even comamnd shells probe multiple locations because all locations can hold a file that should be parsed.
EDIT:
This method is not mandated by any formal standard that I know of, but it is the prevalent solution in the Unix world. Most major daemons (e.g. BIND, sendmail, postfix, INN, Apache) will look for a configuration file at a certain location, but will allow you to override that location and - through the file - any other path.
This is mostly to allow the system administrator to implement whetever scheme they want or to setup multiple concurrent installations, but it does help during testing as well. This flexibility is what makes it a Best Practice if not a proper standard.
I would like to know if there is good practices, good tools to move a bunch of windows makefile projects to some msbuid (VS 2010) format?
If you think that' not a good idea to make it using a tool, maybe you do know something like a dependency analyser to make a checklist?
Having recently converted a legacy "make" based build to MSBuild, I'd have to say that there is no real easy way. Granted, the legacy build I was working on was actually calling msbuild to build .sln (I believe that the build engineer that put the other process in place was Old-Skool, and was using the toolset that best suited him, rather than .Net).
However, what I noticed was that the make (specifically nmake.exe/build.exe) tools were directory based - subdirs were "built" before parent dirs. Whereas that is not the case for msbuild - it's solution and project based.
Get your code into Visual Studio projects, living in a "flat" directory structure (having all projects as children of a single "Source" folder will really make your life easier in the long run - don't have projects that live several dirs "down the tree"
Use multiple solutions to break the build into "tiers" - order the build of the slns into a helper .bat file - this will help you in the long term to convert to TeamBuild
(my answer started to get out of control - your question reminds me of that joke with the American visiting Ireland who gets lost, and he asks a local "how do you get to Kilarney?", and the local replies "well, I wouldn't start from here".. Can you give a bit more detail about what you are actually buiding? Is it .Net code? I'm sure there is countless advice I and others could give you, but don't know what you are working with)
I want to create a setup for my project so that it can be installed on any pc without installing the header files.
How can I do that?
There are two general ways to distribute programs:
Source Distribution (source code to be built). The most common way is to use GNU autotools to generate a configure script so that your project can be installed by doing ./configure && make install
Binary Distribution (prebuilt). Instead of shipping source, you ship binaries. There are a couple of competing standards although the two main ones are RPM and DEB file.
You just changed your question (appreciated, it was kind of vage), so my answer no longer applies ..
make sure you have a C compiler
I'd be surprised if you didn't, Linux normally has one
find an editor you are comfortable with
vi and emacs are the classics
write your first program and compile
learn about makefiles
learn about sub projects and libraries
In many respects, your question is too vague to be answerable. You will need to describe more what you have in mind. All else apart, if you are using an integrated development environment (IDE), then what you do should be coloured strongly by what the IDE encourages you to do. (Fighting your IDE is counter-productive; I've just never found an IDE that doesn't make me want to fight it.)
However, for a typical project on Linux, you will create a directory to hold the materials. For a small project (up to a few thousand lines of code in a few - say 5-20 - files), you might not need any more structure than a single directory. For bigger projects, you will segregate sub-sections of the project into separate sub-directories under the main project directory.
Depending on your build mechanisms, you may have a single makefile at the top of the project hierarchy (or the only directory in the 'hierarchy'). This goes in line with the 'Recursive Make Considered Harmful' paper (P Miller). Alternatively, you can create a separate makefile for each sub-directory and the top-level makefile simply coordinates builds across directories.
You should also consider which version control system (VCS) you will use.