[CMake] Copying cmake generated files to another machine

[Alan W. Irwin]

On 2009-12-06 18:20+0100 Eric Noulard wrote:

> 2009/12/6 steve naroff <snaroff at apple.com>:
>> Hi, I work on llvm/clang (a client of cmake).
>> For development, cmake is wonderful (no big issues).
>> For deployment, cmake's inability to copy it's generated project files to
>> another machine is causing us some grief. The scenario is quite simple: I
>> want to copy the llvm/clang source tree over another machine (running the
>> same OS/tools) and build it *without* having to rerun cmake and generate
>> *new* project files. Without this ability, it requires the target machine
>> have cmake installed (which isn't convenient for some clients that want to
>> build/use/master the result of the llvm/clang build). What was a 1 step
>> process (open the project file) now becomes a 3 step process (install cmake,
>> run it to generate the project file, open the project file).
>> Last time I checked (about a year ago) the usage model I've outlined wasn't
>> supported. Is this still the case? Is there any workaround?
>> Thanks for any help with this,
>
> I think that the topic has been discussed several times and each time
> (I remember)
> the answer was, this not possible (in general) to make cmake produce a build
> tree (i.e. project file) which may copied and re-used without CMake.
>
> There is the CMAKE_SUPPRESS_REGENERATION which may be used
> to suppress the "build tree / project file" regeneration (which
> implies CMake usage)
> but I think this does not work if your build tree is not exactly the same on
> the target machine (i.e. full absolute path to file is the same).
> There is the CMAKE_USE_RELATIVE_PATHS option but Bill said recently
> that it should be deprecated:
> http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2009-November/033456.html
>
> However being able to somehow "prepare" a build tree and give it to a
> customer/user
> seems to be important for several people.
> May be we can achieve this **without** requiring the fact that CMake
> should not be run.
>
> May be we can think of "packaging" CMake itself along with the build tree?
> My idea is YOU WON'T HAVE TO **INSTALL** CMake but when you
> unzip your build tree you'll get:
>   - the source tree
>   - the pre-configured build tree
>   - the cmake binary folder.
>
> Could be something like:
>   MyProject----------Sources
>                  |_____Build
>                  |_____CMake
>
>
> Would the idea fits the need?
>    Potential user may step in and tell us what they think?
> Would it be doable?
>    I think it could be done with some "special" CPack generator
>    but may be CMake developer can tell us what they think of this
> [may be wrong] idea?
>
> With this feature you'll get a "portable" project which contains the
> source tree,
> a preconfigured build tree + some cmake binaries corresponding to the
> build tree.
>

Eric, I didn't see your e-mail before I sent mine. However, now that I have
read yours, I think your above idea of including cmake in the "source"
distribution is an excellent one which answers my two caveats (and also your
additional regeneration caveat above).

Alan
__________________________
Alan W. Irwin

Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).

Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation
for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting software
package (plplot.org); the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of
Linux Links project (loll.sf.net); and the Linux Brochure Project
(lbproject.sf.net).
__________________________

Linux-powered Science
__________________________