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.
Related
I need to install the same C++/Fortran library compiled with different compilers on the system with CMake. Is there a standard location where to install the different compiler-specific versions of the same library on the system? For example, assuming that lib.so and lib.a have already been installed using the system package manager under /usr/, is it good practice to install each of the additional compiler-specific versions in a different folder under let's say usr/local. Or is there a better way of doing this that you can advise?
It depends on how many compilers/libraries/versions you have. If you have just a few of them, I think that (almost) any choice on the location is right but I personally prefer /opt/ paths for manually installed code. But if you start having several combinations of them you easily get in trouble. Besides, I think that the question on the "best" location is related to the question on the "best" way to switch from the usage of one library to another one, possibly avoiding to manually set LD_LIBRARY_PATH, libraies to link or similar things.
I give some personal recommendations according to my experience for systems where you want to support many libraries/applications with many compilers/versions and also provide them for many users:
Do not use root user to install compiled software: just use an "installer account" and give read and execute permissions when needed to other users
Select a path for compiled software, e.g. /opt and define two subfolders /opt/build and /opt/install, the first one for your sources and where you compile them, the second as compilation target
Create some subfolders based on categories, e.g. /compilers, /libraries, /applications, ... from both /opt/build and /opt/install
Start preparing compilers under /compilers, e.g. /compilers/gnu/6.3 or /compilers/intel/2017. When possible compile them, e.g. from /opt/build/compilers/gnu/6.3 to /opt/install/compilers/gnu/6.3 or just put them into /install folder, e.g. /opt/install/compilers/intel/2017
Prepare the tree for libraries (or applications) adding subfolders which specify the version, the compiler and compiler version, e.g. compile from /opt/build/libraries/boost/1.64.0/gnu/6.3 and install to /opt/install/libraries/boost/1.64.0/gnu/6.3
At this stage, you have well organized things. But:
It is difficult to decide which library you want to use, you have to specify LD_LIBRARY_PATH or manually link the right one and the situation is worse when you deal also with applications
You are not considering dependencies between libraries: how can I force using g++ 6.3 when linking against boost/1.64.0/gnu/6.3?
To address these and many other issues, a good way of doing is using a tool which can help you, e.g. http://modules.sourceforge.net/ so that you can easily switch to one library to another one, force dependency, get help, and in general have something less error prone in the daily usage.
I'm working on a project now in which I configure the cabal file to build several executables which share the library built by the same cabal file. The cabal project is structured much like this one, with one library section followed by several executable sections that include this library in their build-depends sections.
I'm using this approach so I can make common functions available to any number of executables, and create more executables easily as needed.
Yet in his Monad Reader article on Hoogle p.33, Neil Mitchell advocates bundling up Haskell projects into a single executable with multiple modes (e.g. by using Neil Mitchell's CmdArgs library.) So there might be one mode to start a web server, another mode to query the database from the command line, etc. Quote:
Provide one executable
Version 3 had four executable programs – one to generate ranking
information, one to do command line searching, one to do web
searching, and one to do regression testing. Version 4 has one
executable, which does all the above and more, controlled by flags.
There are many advantages to providing only one end program – it
reduces the chance of code breaking without noticing it, it makes the
total file size smaller by not duplicating the Haskell run-time system,
it decreases the number of commands users need to learn. The move to
one multipurpose executable seems to be a common theme, which tools
such as darcs and hpc both being based on one command with multiple
modes.
Is a single multimode executable really the better way to go? Are there countervailing reasons to stick with separate executables sharing the same library?
Personally, I'm more of a fan of the Unix philosophy "write programs that do one thing and do it well". However there are reasons for doing either way, so the only reasonable answer here is: it depends.
One example where it makes senses to bundle everything into same executable, is when you're targeting a platform that is very limited on resources (e.g, embedded system). This is the approach taken by BusyBox.
On the other hand if you divide into multiple executables, you give your clients the option of just using those that matter to them. With a single executable, even if your client really just wanted one functionality, he'll have no way to get rid of the extra baggage.
I'm sure there are a lot of more reasons for going either way, but this just goes to show that there's no definitive answer. It depends on the use case.
Hey Stackoverflowers: one comment and one question.
Comment: You guys/girls are great, thanks for taking a look.
Question:
Can Bjam, Scons, or Cmake easily install a .pc file for library projects?
I find it really annoying that I have to maintain the same library dependency list in my scons/bjam/make file, the .pc file (for libraries), and rpm/deb package config files.
It would be nice if a build tool could manage the build and installation meta-data.
Thoughts?
Because SCons is such a flexible environment, yes you can in fact use it to manage the entire process from building to deliverable package.
Our build goes through several phases with SCons:
Build - resulting .o, .os, generated files, etc under ./build
Assembly - resulting exe, so/dll, binarys, etc under ./delivery
Packing & configuration - a set of deb/rpm/msi + configuration, etc under ./package
It isn't all out of the box, and requires you to write some python code, find tools etc, but it does work for us pretty well.
Our project is C, C++, Java, & Python building dozens of binary targets for a distributed system with multiple delivery targets for different machine installs on Windows, Ubuntu and Redhat Linux.
Again, be prepared to have to customize your scripts and write custom builders though to wrap different processes.
Recently, I switched my development environment from Windows to Linux. So far, I have only used Visual Studio for C++ development, so many concepts, like make and Autotools, are new to me. I have read the GNU makefile documentation and got almost an idea about it. But I am kind of confused about Autotools.
As far as I know, makefiles are used to make the build process easier.
Why do we need tools like Autotools just for creating the makefiles? Since all knows how to create a makefile, I am not getting the real use of Autotools.
What is the standard? Do we need to use tools like this or would just handwritten makefiles do?
You are talking about two separate but intertwined things here:
Autotools
GNU coding standards
Within Autotools, you have several projects:
Autoconf
Automake
Libtool
Let's look at each one individually.
Autoconf
Autoconf easily scans an existing tree to find its dependencies and create a configure script that will run under almost any kind of shell. The configure script allows the user to control the build behavior (i.e. --with-foo, --without-foo, --prefix, --sysconfdir, etc..) as well as doing checks to ensure that the system can compile the program.
Configure generates a config.h file (from a template) which programs can include to work around portability issues. For example, if HAVE_LIBPTHREAD is not defined, use forks instead.
I personally use Autoconf on many projects. It usually takes people some time to get used to m4. However, it does save time.
You can have makefiles inherit some of the values that configure finds without using automake.
Automake
By providing a short template that describes what programs will be built and what objects need to be linked to build them, Makefiles that adhere to GNU coding standards can automatically be created. This includes dependency handling and all of the required GNU targets.
Some people find this easier. I prefer to write my own makefiles.
Libtool
Libtool is a very cool tool for simplifying the building and installation of shared libraries on any Unix-like system. Sometimes I use it; other times (especially when just building static link objects) I do it by hand.
There are other options too, see StackOverflow question Alternatives to Autoconf and Autotools?.
Build automation & GNU coding standards
In short, you really should use some kind of portable build configuration system if you release your code to the masses. What you use is up to you. GNU software is known to build and run on almost anything. However, you might not need to adhere to such (and sometimes extremely pedantic) standards.
If anything, I'd recommend giving Autoconf a try if you're writing software for POSIX systems. Just because Autotools produce part of a build environment that's compatible with GNU standards doesn't mean you have to follow those standards (many don't!) :) There are plenty of other options, too.
Edit
Don't fear m4 :) There is always the Autoconf macro archive. Plenty of examples, or drop in checks. Write your own or use what's tested. Autoconf is far too often confused with Automake. They are two separate things.
First of all, the Autotools are not an opaque build system but a loosely coupled tool-chain, as tinkertim already pointed out. Let me just add some thoughts on Autoconf and Automake:
Autoconf is the configuration system that creates the configure script based on feature checks that are supposed to work on all kinds of platforms. A lot of system knowledge has gone into its m4 macro database during the 15 years of its existence. On the one hand, I think the latter is the main reason Autotools have not been replaced by something else yet. On the other hand, Autoconf used to be far more important when the target platforms were more heterogeneous and Linux, AIX, HP-UX, SunOS, ..., and a large variety of different processor architecture had to be supported. I don't really see its point if you only want to support recent Linux distributions and Intel-compatible processors.
Automake is an abstraction layer for GNU Make and acts as a Makefile generator from simpler templates. A number of projects eventually got rid of the Automake abstraction and reverted to writing Makefiles manually because you lose control over your Makefiles and you might not need all the canned build targets that obfuscate your Makefile.
Now to the alternatives (and I strongly suggest an alternative to Autotools based on your requirements):
CMake's most notable achievement is replacing AutoTools in KDE. It's probably the closest you can get if you want to have Autoconf-like functionality without m4 idiosyncrasies. It brings Windows support to the table and has proven to be applicable in large projects. My beef with CMake is that it is still a Makefile-generator (at least on Linux) with all its immanent problems (e.g. Makefile debugging, timestamp signatures, implicit dependency order).
SCons is a Make replacement written in Python. It uses Python scripts as build control files allowing very sophisticated techniques. Unfortunately, its configuration system is not on par with Autoconf. SCons is often used for in-house development when adaptation to specific requirements is more important than following conventions.
If you really want to stick with Autotools, I strongly suggest to read Recursive Make Considered Harmful (archived) and write your own GNU Makefile configured through Autoconf.
The answers already provided here are good, but I'd strongly recommend not taking the advice to write your own makefile if you have anything resembling a standard C/C++ project. We need the autotools instead of handwritten makefiles because a standard-compliant makefile generated by automake offers a lot of useful targets under well-known names, and providing all these targets by hand is tedious and error-prone.
Firstly, writing a Makefile by hand seems a great idea at first, but most people will not bother to write more than the rules for all, install and maybe clean. automake generates dist, distcheck, clean, distclean, uninstall and all these little helpers. These additional targets are a great boon to the sysadmin that will eventually install your software.
Secondly, providing all these targets in a portable and flexible way is quite error-prone. I've done a lot of cross-compilation to Windows targets recently, and the autotools performed just great. In contrast to most hand-written files, which were mostly a pain in the ass to compile. Mind you, it is possible to create a good Makefile by hand. But don't overestimate yourself, it takes a lot of experience and knowledge about a bunch of different systems, and automake creates great Makefiles for you right out of the box.
Edit: And don't be tempted to use the "alternatives". CMake and friends are a horror to the deployer because they aren't interface-compatible to configure and friends. Every half-way competent sysadmin or developer can do great things like cross-compilation or simple things like setting a prefix out of his head or with a simple --help with a configure script. But you are damned to spend an hour or three when you have to do such things with BJam. Don't get me wrong, BJam is probably a great system under the hood, but it's a pain in the ass to use because there are almost no projects using it and very little and incomplete documentation. autoconf and automake have a huge lead here in terms of established knowledge.
So, even though I'm a bit late with this advice for this question: Do yourself a favor and use the autotools and automake. The syntax might be a bit strange, but they do a way better job than 99% of the developers do on their own.
For small projects or even for large projects that only run on one platform, handwritten makefiles are the way to go.
Where autotools really shine is when you are compiling for different platforms that require different options. Autotools is frequently the brains behind the typical
./configure
make
make install
compilation and install steps for Linux libraries and applications.
That said, I find autotools to be a pain and I've been looking for a better system. Lately I've been using bjam, but that also has its drawbacks. Good luck finding what works for you.
Autotools are needed because Makefiles are not guaranteed to work the same across different platforms. If you handwrite a Makefile, and it works on your machine, there is a good chance that it won't on mine.
Do you know what unix your users will be using? Or even which distribution of Linux? Do you know where they want software installed? Do you know what tools they have, what architecture they want to compile on, how many CPUs they have, how much RAM and disk might be available to them?
The *nix world is a cross-platform landscape, and your build and install tools need to deal with that.
Mind you, the auto* tools date from an earlier epoch, and there are many valid complaints about them, but the several projects to replace them with more modern alternatives are having trouble developing a lot of momentum.
Lots of things are like that in the *nix world.
Autotools is a disaster.
The generated ./configure script checks for features that have not been present on any Unix system for last 20 years or so. To do this, it spends a huge amount of time.
Running ./configure takes for ages. Although modern server CPUs can have even dozens of cores, and there may be several such CPUs per server, the ./configure is single-threaded. We still have enough years of Moore's law left that the number of CPU cores will go way up as a function of time. So, the time ./configure takes will stay approximately constant whereas parallel build times reduce by a factor of 2 every 2 years due to Moore's law. Or actually, I would say the time ./configure takes might even increase due to increasing software complexity taking advantage of improved hardware.
The mere act of adding just one file to your project requires you to run automake, autoconf and ./configure which will take ages, and then you'll probably find that since some important files have changed, everything will be recompiled. So add just one file, and make -j${CPUCOUNT} recompiles everything.
And about make -j${CPUCOUNT}. The generated build system is a recursive one. Recursive make has for a long amount of time been considered harmful.
Then when you install the software that has been compiled, you'll find that it doesn't work. (Want proof? Clone protobuf repository from Github, check out commit 9f80df026933901883da1d556b38292e14836612, install it to a Debian or Ubuntu system, and hey presto: protoc: error while loading shared libraries: libprotoc.so.15: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory -- since it's in /usr/local/lib and not /usr/lib; workaround is to do export LD_RUN_PATH=/usr/local/lib before typing make).
The theory is that by using autotools, you could create a software package that can be compiled on Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and other operating systems. The fact? Every non-Linux system to build packages from source has numerous patch files in their repository to work around autotools bugs. Just take a look at e.g. FreeBSD /usr/ports: it's full of patches. So, it would have been as easy to create a small patch for a non-autotools build system on a per project basis than to create a small patch for an autotools build system on a per project basis. Or perhaps even easier, as standard make is much easier to use than autotools.
The fact is, if you create your own build system based on standard make (and make it inclusive and not recursive, following the recommendations of the "Recursive make considered harmful" paper), things work in a much better manner. Also, your build time goes down by an order of magnitude, perhaps even two orders of magnitude if your project is very small project of 10-100 C language files and you have dozens of cores per CPU and multiple CPUs. It's also much easier to interface custom automatic code generation tools with a custom build system based on standard make instead of dealing with the m4 mess of autotools. With standard make, you can at least type a shell command into the Makefile.
So, to answer your question: why use autotools? Answer: there is no reason to do so. Autotools has been obsolete since when commercial Unix has become obsolete. And the advent of multi-core CPUs has made autotools even more obsolete. Why programmers haven't realized that yet, is a mystery. I'll happily use standard make on my build systems, thank you. Yes, it takes some amount of work to generate the dependency files for C language header inclusion, but the amount of work is saved by not having to fight with autotools.
I dont feel I am an expert to answer this but still give you a bit analogy with my experience.
Because upto some extent it is similar to why we should write Embedded Codes in C language(High Level language) rather then writing in Assembly Language.
Both solves the same purpose but latter is more lenghty, tedious ,time consuming and more error prone(unless you know ISA of the processor very well) .
Same is the case with Automake tool and writing your own makefile.
Writing Makefile.am and configure.ac is pretty simple than writing individual project Makefile.
I have a plugin project I've been developing for a few years where the plugin works with numerous combinations of [primary application version, 3rd party library version, 32-bit vs. 64-bit]. Is there a (clean) way to use autotools to create a single makefile that builds all versions of the plugin.
As far as I can tell from skimming through the autotools documentation, the closest approximation to what I'd like is to have N independent copies of the project, each with its own makefile. This seems a little suboptimal for testing and development as (a) I'd need to continually propagate code changes across all the different copies and (b) there is a lot of wasted space in duplicating the project so many times. Is there a better way?
EDIT:
I've been rolling my own solution for a while where I have a fancy makefile and some perl scripts to hunt down various 3rd party library versions, etc. As such, I'm open to other non-autotools solutions. For other build tools, I'd want them to be very easy for end users to install. The tools also need to be smart enough to hunt down various 3rd party libraries and headers without a huge amount of trouble. I'm mostly looking for a linux solution, but one that also works for Windows and/or the Mac would be a bonus.
If your question is:
Can I use the autotools on some machine A to create a single universal makefile that will work on all other machines?
then the answer is "No". The autotools do not even make a pretense at trying to do that. They are designed to contain portable code that will determine how to create a workable makefile on the target machine.
If your question is:
Can I use the autotools to configure software that needs to run on different machines, with different versions of the primary software which my plugin works with, plus various 3rd party libraries, not to mention 32-bit vs 64-bit issues?
then the answer is "Yes". The autotools are designed to be able to do that. Further, they work on Unix, Linux, MacOS X, BSD.
I have a program, SQLCMD (which pre-dates the Microsoft program of the same name by a decade and more), which works with the IBM Informix databases. It detects the version of the client software (called IBM Informix ESQL/C, part of the IBM Informix ClientSDK or CSDK) is installed, and whether it is 32-bit or 64-bit. It also detects which version of the software is installed, and adapts its functionality to what is available in the supporting product. It supports versions that have been released over a period of about 17 years. It is autoconfigured -- I had to write some autoconf macros for the Informix functionality, and for a couple of other gizmos (high resolution timing, presence of /dev/stdin etc). But it is doable.
On the other hand, I don't try and release a single makefile that fits all customer machines and environments; there are just too many possibilities for that to be sensible. But autotools takes care of the details for me (and my users). All they do is:
./configure
That's easier than working out how to edit the makefile. (Oh, for the first 10 years, the program was configured by hand. It was hard for people to do, even though I had pretty good defaults set up. That was why I moved to auto-configuration: it makes it much easier for people to install.)
Mr Fooz commented:
I want something in between. Customers will use multiple versions and bitnesses of the same base application on the same machine in my case. I'm not worried about cross-compilation such as building Windows binaries on Linux.
Do you need a separate build of your plugin for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions? (I'd assume yes - but you could surprise me.) So you need to provide a mechanism for the user to say
./configure --use-tppkg=/opt/tp/pkg32-1.0.3
(where tppkg is a code for your third-party package, and the location is specifiable by the user.) However, keep in mind usability: the fewer such options the user has to provide, the better; against that, do not hard code things that should be optional, such as install locations. By all means look in default locations - that's good. And default to the bittiness of the stuff you find. Maybe if you find both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, then you should build both -- that would require careful construction, though. You can always echo "Checking for TP-Package ..." and indicate what you found and where you found it. Then the installer can change the options. Make sure you document in './configure --help' what the options are; this is standard autotools practice.
Do not do anything interactive though; the configure script should run, reporting what it does. The Perl Configure script (note the capital letter - it is a wholly separate automatic configuration system) is one of the few intensively interactive configuration systems left (and that is probably mainly because of its heritage; if starting anew, it would most likely be non-interactive). Such systems are more of a nuisance to configure than the non-interactive ones.
Cross-compilation is tough. I've never needed to do it, thank goodness.
Mr Fooz also commented:
Thanks for the extra comments. I'm looking for something like:
./configure --use-tppkg=/opt/tp/pkg32-1.0.3 --use-tppkg=/opt/tp/pkg64-1.1.2
where it would create both the 32-bit and 64-bit targets in one makefile for the current platform.
Well, I'm sure it could be done; I'm not so sure that it is worth doing by comparison with two separate configuration runs with a complete rebuild in between. You'd probably want to use:
./configure --use-tppkg32=/opt/tp/pkg32-1.0.3 --use-tppkg64=/opt/tp/pkg64-1.1.2
This indicates the two separate directories. You'd have to decide how you're going to do the build, but presumably you'd have two sub-directories, such as 'obj-32' and 'obj-64' for storing the separate sets of object files. You'd also arrange your makefile along the lines of:
FLAGS_32 = ...32-bit compiler options...
FLAGS_64 = ...64-bit compiler options...
TPPKG32DIR = #TPPKG32DIR#
TPPKG64DIR = #TPPKG64DIR#
OBJ32DIR = obj-32
OBJ64DIR = obj-64
BUILD_32 = #BUILD_32#
BUILD_64 = #BUILD_64#
TPPKGDIR =
OBJDIR =
FLAGS =
all: ${BUILD_32} ${BUILD_64}
build_32:
${MAKE} TPPKGDIR=${TPPKG32DIR} OBJDIR=${OBJ32DIR} FLAGS=${FLAGS_32} build
build_64:
${MAKE} TPPKGDIR=${TPPKG64DIR} OBJDIR=${OBJ64DIR} FLAGS=${FLAGS_64} build
build: ${OBJDIR}/plugin.so
This assumes that the plugin would be a shared object. The idea here is that the autotool would detect the 32-bit or 64-bit installs for the Third Party Package, and then make substitutions. The BUILD_32 macro would be set to build_32 if the 32-bit package was required and left empty otherwise; the BUILD_64 macro would be handled similarly.
When the user runs 'make all', it will build the build_32 target first and the build_64 target next. To build the build_32 target, it will re-run make and configure the flags for a 32-bit build. Similarly, to build the build_64 target, it will re-run make and configure the flags for a 64-bit build. It is important that all the flags affected by 32-bit vs 64-bit builds are set on the recursive invocation of make, and that the rules for building objects and libraries are written carefully - for example, the rule for compiling source to object must be careful to place the object file in the correct object directory - using GCC, for example, you would specify (in a .c.o rule):
${CC} ${CFLAGS} -o ${OBJDIR}/$*.o -c $*.c
The macro CFLAGS would include the ${FLAGS} value which deals with the bits (for example, FLAGS_32 = -m32 and FLAGS_64 = -m64, and so when building the 32-bit version,FLAGS = -m32would be included in theCFLAGS` macro.
The residual issues in the autotools is working out how to determine the 32-bit and 64-bit flags. If the worst comes to the worst, you'll have to write macros for that yourself. However, I'd expect (without having researched it) that you can do it using standard facilities from the autotools suite.
Unless you create yourself a carefully (even ruthlessly) symmetric makefile, it won't work reliably.
As far as I know, you can't do that. However, are you stuck with autotools? Are neither CMake nor SCons an option?
We tried it and it doesn't work! So we use now SCons.
Some articles to this topic: 1 and 2
Edit:
Some small example why I love SCons:
env.ParseConfig('pkg-config --cflags --libs glib-2.0')
With this line of code you add GLib to the compile environment (env). And don't forget the User Guide which just great to learn SCons (you really don't have to know Python!). For the end user you could try SCons with PyInstaller or something like that.
And in comparison to make, you use Python, so a complete programming language! With this in mind you can do just everything (more or less).
Have you ever considered to use a single project with multiple build directories?
if your automake project is implemented in a proper way (i.e.: NOT like gcc)
the following is possible:
mkdir build1 build2 build3
cd build1
../configure $(YOUR_OPTIONS)
cd build2
../configure $(YOUR_OPTIONS2)
[...]
you are able to pass different configuration parameters like include directories and compilers (cross compilers i.e.).
you can then even run this in a single make call by running
make -C build1 -C build2 -C build3