[zeromq-dev] Building on Windows

[Martin Sustrik]

George Neill wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at fastmq.com> wrote:
>> Hi Michael, George, everyone,
>>
>> There's one thing I would like your opinion on.
> 
> Only if you don't bash my opinion!  :)

Which we certainly won't :)

>> Currently, there are 3 build systems in 0MQ because of Win32: MSVC
>> project, CMake and MinGW. We cannot maintain all three of them
>> Maintaining all 3 of them would be too much work with too little added
>> value for us. Thus, we would like to choose one to maintain.
>>
>> There are several (mostly contradictory) requirements to take into account:
>>
>> 1. Deployment of Windows binaries will be done via MSI installer
>> package, thus 0MQ users won't have to care about build system at all.
>> The only ones who should be still interested in the topic are developers
>> intending to modify 0MQ code itself.
> 
> installjammer?  http://www.installjammer.com

We have a simple win-only installer using wix almost ready.

>> 2. Ideally, there should be only one build system which would mean that
>> MSVC proj is not an option as it doesn't work for non-Windows systems.
>>
>> 3. CMake is able to generate MSVC project files (am I right?)
> 
> Yes.  That is correct.  It can also generate NMake makefiles (which I
> tend to use most often) when on windows.
> 
>> 4. CMake is missing some features, like packaging (am I right?)
> 
> The cmake project does have a packager, cpack
> (http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake:Packaging_With_CPack)
> 
> I haven't used it at all so I cannot comment much on it.  I use their
> ctest, for unit testing ... it's pretty slick.  Kitware also has a
> continuous build system dashboard, cdash, but again I haven't used
> that at all either.

I've seen the guys presenting the suite at FOSSDEM... seems I've forgot 
most of what was said there.

>> 3. Windows developers may be have little experience with anything aside
>> MSVC and say MinGW may be considered to be an entry barrier to high to
>> overcome.
> 
> CMake certainly caters to this idea (mentality?).  Though I think
> you'd be pleasantly suprised; most often this is not the case! :)

Dunno. I've used to be Win developer myself, so I'm judging on personal 
experience - although a bit outdated one.

>> 4. There may be performance difference between MSVC and gcc (MinGW) build.
>>
>> 5. MinGW may require additional dependencies on runtime (is it so?)
>>
>> Any thoughts anyone?
> 
> So what I think I am hearing you say,  cmake or GNU autotools ...
> 
> I have been an autotools user for many years now, and I am always
> amazed at how involved it _can_ be in setting up and using (on 'nix
> platforms other than linux).  I am also amazed at how much stuff gets
> included in autotool projects that really isn't needed (or used).
> Okay you twisted my arm, an example would be all of the platform
> checks in the 0mq autotools build, which never get used.  :)

True.

> I prefer cmake, it's simple.  Even with the few quirks I have ran in
> to with it.  I have always been able to figure out how to get what I
> needed done and in a timely manner.  Kitware is very active on the
> cmake mailing list and are very helpful when you need some help.  If
> you want to talk quirks, let me know, but in general I now
> prefer/recommend this tool over autotools (even when windows isn't
> involved).
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't hate autotools.   It is very flexible has
> fit the bill for many years I just prefer not to use it if I don't
> have to anymore.
> 
> My vote is +1 for cmake!

Actually, after reading all the feedback I've realised that it's not 
that easy and that we simply cannot simplify the project as to use a 
single build system...  So what I would do is to leave the build system 
as is for now and hope that community will gradually converge on some 
plausible solution.

Happy new year everyone!
Martin