It's getting quite frustrating with Xcode 5 here. All I'm trying to achieve is embedding some custom Cocoa frameworks into my project and create two versions of the app, one for the Mac App Store and one for a custom Online Store (so that when building for the MAS there'll be a folder called Debug (MAS) so I can distinguish it from the other version).
I embedded three frameworks into the project (only god knows why only one project can have another one embedded at a time, to hell with this limitation) and added their products in the "Link binary with libraries" and "copy frameworks" build phase. The finished built products are at the default location in the Library.
Now here's the thing - every time I'm using custom build configuration files other than "Debug" and "Release", the frameworks are NOT copied to the custom build folders but instead just go into "Debug" and "Release" regardless of any build options of the main app. Also, the frameworks are always built using "Debug" and are no longer connected to the current build mode (test, archive, etc.). To cut a long story short, this is a huge mess with file paths and obviously a lot of bugs concerning custom frameworks and custom build configurations.
Now my question is - there has to be an official or working way of maintaining an Xcode project that is both distributed over the MAS and a custom online store (two versions) and has at least one custom framework embedded. How do all other developers have solved this problem, I feel like I'm doing something fundamentally wrong and if I do, sorry for putting the blame on Xcode but something's for sure: Xcode's path management with external components is a chaos and the cause for unlimited mailing list and forum posts...
The answer is to create separate targets for the MAS & non-MAS app. You can add additional targets to build the custom frameworks and make the different targets dependent on each other (as necessary). Once this is all setup (properly) then building any of the targets will build any dependent targets (with the same build flags). And AFAIK there's nothing preventing an Xcode project from including multiple sub-projects so I haven't a clue why you believe this to be the case.
What I am looking for:
Download library
Extract It
Apply custom patch
Run configure
Run build command
What library I am trying to build are:
Openssl
Boost
Thrift
C-ares
Curl
Pcre
Nginx
ICU
JsonCPP
I think I can do these things using external module: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/v2.8.8/cmake.html#module:ExternalProject
But I have following question?
I have different type of build and with different directory. Is it
going to build all these library for every different target? If yes
it will be painful as all these library take one hour to build. Is
there a way I can control it and it only build it once. As library
remains same for all these targets.
On switching directory to different name. Cmake force everything to
be rebuild-ed. Will it be same for external library. If yes? How to
solve this problem. I don't want to rebuild the library if I am not
changing them and want to use them while switching to different
branches without building them.
Yes, you can use CMake's ExternalProject feature to accomplish what you want to do.
When using cross-compilation in combination with external projects, the source code will be built once for each toolchain. You could avoid rebuilds if you checked in the results of the build into a source-control system, and re-checked it out on each new person's machine, but I do not recommend this. Instead, have one of your "set up new computer" tasks actually be allowing the compilation to run overnight, which will also act as a test that the machine is actually usable. That set-up task can be launched by a system administrator prior to a new hire's arrival, or you can leave it to the new hire, as circumstances require.
I'm not completely certain what you are asking in your second question, but if the library is unchanged, CMake will detect that it is unchanged and not recompile it. Typically, the source code would be in a single directory tree: each compiled version would be built in a distinct location. Thus, developers can access any compiled version at any time just by switching directories. This is particularly helpful because it allows you to mount these directories over NFS to embedded hardware, et cetera.
I'm currently investigating cmake to allow automatic building on the Win32 platform. For all runtimes and libraries I'd like to build, Visual Studio (2008/2010) projects do allready exist.
I've come across cmake, but I'm unsure if I really need it. As the documentation says, cmake generates VS projects and they then can be built e.g. using MSBuild.
As the projects itself allready do exist (and build nicely via the IDE or MSBuild on the cmd line), what do I need and use cmake for? Just for directory/project folder traversal? Build failure reporting?
Regards,
Paul
Well, strictly speaking you do not need it. However, it does give you a few advantages:
The idiomatic way to use CMake, forces you to use out-of-source builds. Arguable, but I am personally convinced that these keep you source-repository very clean.
You can support multiple visual studio versions (with the out-of-source builds). Perhaps it will be a little easier to port your project to other compilers (from MinGW -> Linux GCC).
With the find_package and config.cmake files, and a large number of available findXXX modules, CMake makes it a lot easier to "import" third-party libraries into your build-chain.
You don't need it. Cmake is only useful if you are trying to keep the same source code able to build in multiple platforms and compilers. If you are simply building using the microsoft stack you have no need of it.
We are currently working in a team where we use both Visual Studio and Code::Blocks, is there a way to replicate changes between those project files? So if one adds a file to the project file it will also get adjusted in the project file of the other IDE?
Please note: We want our project to work on multiple IDE's, platforms and compilers. Thus a general solution is welcome too.
I assume you're using a VCS? If so my intuition would be to write a script that syncs up your project files (based on modification date?) and run it as a checkin hook if any of the project files are changed in the commit.
http://wordaligned.org/articles/a-subversion-pre-commit-hook
Well this sounds like exactly the type of problem CMake was created to solve. There is definitely a learning curve which I blame mainly on the obtuse documentation but CMake is used in a lot of open source projects now, such as KDE, OGRE and many, many others so there are a lot of usage examples out there. There is also a basic tutorial here.
CMake uses it's own syntax (which is fairly complex though still easier than autotools in my opinion) which is used with project file generators, which supports make, visual studio, codeblocks, eclipse and possibly others. It also has a installer generator which can make NSIS installers, Mac OS X bundles and debian/red hat packages (and again, possibly others) which I find quite useful.
At home, I use CTRL+SHIFT+B or F7 or whatever key sequence initiates the build for my build tool. At work, this doesn't quite cut it.
At my first job (an internship) we used a product called Visual Build, which I have come to like very much. It's the best build tool I've ever worked with. The down side here is that it's not free.
At my latest job, I came in knowing literally nothing about Ant. Now, unfortunately, I've become deeply involved in our build processes, and cannot extricate myself. It works, yes, but after coming from Visual build, it seems like it's fighting me every step of the way. Yes, it's free, but we're not trying to be a free-software-only development company or anything.
I've never looked in to make or any other build tools, so I don't really know what else is out there.
Has anybody ever seen or had experience with Visual Build? Mostly I'm fond of a few key things:
it has a GUI
it runs arbitrary VBScript without the need of a compiled class
you can step through the build process, or start from anywhere in the middle.
Are there any free build tools that have this? Is there any way to convince people that it's worth it to move on? It's 2008. We use IDEs to develop, why not (IBEs) to build?
Edit: I'm mostly looking for an answer to my last questions; Is there a solution with a built-in GUI that I can use for free?
Not very sophisticated, but we use a set of batch files. And that works great.
We use FinalBuilder - I think it's very similar to VisualBuild, though I've not used the latter.
It does run from the command line, and you can integrate it with CC.Net if you want.
For Java projects we use Teamcity, sort of cruise control like, but you can also do a remote run, i.e. you send your changes to the server, it builds and does unit tests, if everything works ok, THEN you checkin, very nice build tool and free for up to 20 build configurations.
For our Visual Studio 2005 projects including packaging the final exes and dlls with InstallShield and putting them up on a shared server we use Final Builder, it's not free, but it is very easy to use and get started with.
We also telnet out (from FinalBuilder) to a number of other platforms (Unix/Linux/OpenVMS) and start remote builds by running makefiles there.
We do not use continous build, but there is a FinalBuilder Server which handles that and comes free with the FinalBuilder Professional license.
We are very happy with FinalBuilder, it's quite easy to get up to speed with and powerful enough to solve most problems.
CMake. Generates build file for KDevelop, Eclipse, Makefiles and Visual Studio (and XCode), and it really works. You can easily extend it with macros, although the programming capabilities are rather limited. It's easy to learn, and porting an existing application from Visual Studio to it is pretty easy. However, you are limited to C++/C and IIRC Fortran code.
KDE is also using CMake now, so it seems to scale very well (i.e. generation time for the projects/dependency checking is not too bad).
I am not sure this is exactly what you are looking for, but I LOVE CruiseControl.NET. I have it build my projects using the MSBuild task. It doesn't have a GUI exactly, but there is a web interface to view the results of your builds and a System Tray resident program which will alert you of the build status.
UppercuT. It's free.
UppercuT uses NAnt to build and it is the insanely easy to use Build Framework.
Automated Builds as easy as (1) solution name, (2) source control path, (3) company name for most projects!!!
http://code.google.com/p/uppercut/
Some good explanations here: UppercuT
Going back to the keystrokes thing for a sec, I found Hoekey which the CTO loves. I don't use it myself, but as a way of assign keystrokes to things, it's pretty good.
I know nothing of Visual Build, but from your description it sounds like it is tied to Windows and doesn't run from the command line.
If you are building Java software (I assume you are since you are using Ant), it's preferable to have a cross-platform tool. If you can run the tool from the command-line, then it is scriptable which is extremely important for automation.
Ant is also extensible and a de facto standard. Many tools that you may use (Cobertura, TestNG, etc.) provide Ant tasks so that they can easily be intergrated with your build.
I use Ant for all Java projects. Some people prefer Maven, but I'm not one of them. Ant is far from perfect (the XML syntax is a bit clunky) but it is well documented, extremely stable and pretty straightforward.
If you use a standard tool, such as Ant or Maven, you will be able to take advantage of any number of Continuous Integration products. I doubt you will find many that work with Visual Build.
Most IDEs support Ant, so they give you a GUI of sorts and your CI server will give you a web interface for doing builds.
NAnt (.NET port of Ant). Works great and is easily extensible.
For small projects I do use post-build scripts and with the support of 7z, Nsis and similar CLI tools it's doing the job perfectly for me.
TeamCity and CuriseControl works well for any projects,but here is why you would like to choose TeamCity:-
Ease of setup: During setup we found TeamCity easier to setup and use especially compared to CruiseControl. We did not need to edit XML files or massively configure individual build machines like CruiseControl.
Ease of extensibility:TeamCity stands out in its ease of extensibility too. If we find that builds are waiting in the queue too long, we can add more computers as agents. The only additional work on our end is registering the new computers with the TeamCity server and installing msbuild and subversion.
Interaction with Subversion: One can check how many and what changes were committed to subversion since the last build, who started a build etc.
I've grown very fond of scons for building C++ files. It's very straightforward and the build scripts are written in Python (which is much better than some hacked together DSL IMO).
Ant or Maven are great little build tools.
And if you want to automate the build process there are some great tools like TeamCity and Bamboo.
Personally I use Makefiles for pretty much everything because they are simple as hell. But in my work, I'm forced to use ant.
The main problem I have against ant is that XML makes it hard to read and understand, even with the correct indentation. On the other hand, the verbosity of XML can help when reading someone else's ant file, but still makes it a PITA when the file is more than a few tens of lines.
As for having a GUI to build... I've always felt that's a minus rather than a plus.
Maven is the best for me because it handles the project dependencies