Re: FYI: CMakeVMMaker (Was Re: Automated VM build server)

> I just uploaded the VMMaker/CMakeVMMaker package,
> and since couple of people noticed it, and started asking (privately)
> what is it, i decided to do little "premature" explanation.
> In short:
>     - it is a part of future automated build system.
>
> Its only in prototype phase, and some protocol and even classes could
> appear/disappear.
>
> The idea of this is simple: we put all knowledge about VM building
> process into image,
> and then generating sources&  cmake config, which then doing the rest.
> This will allow us to easily change configs and generate not just VM source(s) ,
> but also appropriate makefile(s) on the fly ,
> without the need of dealing with pesky files on file system.
> Because what is most annoying with file-based configuration that it is
> spread among multiple (sub)directories
> with a lot of different include files, and its really hard to learn a
> project structure from it, and even harder to alter it.
> So, what the hell: i prefer to work with classes and methods instead
> of directories and files.
>
> What i think is most cool thing about it, that anyone could make own
> config by simply
> subclassing a particular 'official' configuration to make own custom
> VM, with own subset of plugins, settings etc.
> And then once you tested it, it could be made public and built
> automatically by anyone else,
> without extra manual steps and perusing in file system, IDE(s) etc.
>
> I plan to create configurations for both squeak and cog vms on all
> major platforms,
>   then i will use them to automatically build VMs using Hudson server.
>
> As always, your suggestions and questions are most welcome.
>

> Did you manage to get the cmake stuff that Goeffroy Couprie posted running on Windows? I never had much success (see http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2010-July/005113.html).
>
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas
>
> On 12/23/2010 9:05 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> I just uploaded the VMMaker/CMakeVMMaker package,
>> and since couple of people noticed it, and started asking (privately)
>> what is it, i decided to do little "premature" explanation.
>> In short:
>>    - it is a part of future automated build system.
>>
>> Its only in prototype phase, and some protocol and even classes could
>> appear/disappear.
>>
>> The idea of this is simple: we put all knowledge about VM building
>> process into image,
>> and then generating sources&  cmake config, which then doing the rest.
>> This will allow us to easily change configs and generate not just VM source(s) ,
>> but also appropriate makefile(s) on the fly ,
>> without the need of dealing with pesky files on file system.
>> Because what is most annoying with file-based configuration that it is
>> spread among multiple (sub)directories
>> with a lot of different include files, and its really hard to learn a
>> project structure from it, and even harder to alter it.
>> So, what the hell: i prefer to work with classes and methods instead
>> of directories and files.
>>
>> What i think is most cool thing about it, that anyone could make own
>> config by simply
>> subclassing a particular 'official' configuration to make own custom
>> VM, with own subset of plugins, settings etc.
>> And then once you tested it, it could be made public and built
>> automatically by anyone else,
>> without extra manual steps and perusing in file system, IDE(s) etc.
>>
>> I plan to create configurations for both squeak and cog vms on all
>> major platforms,
>>  then i will use them to automatically build VMs using Hudson server.
>>
>> As always, your suggestions and questions are most welcome.
>>
>

>
> On 12/23/2010 10:21 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>> On 23 December 2010 18:57, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you manage to get the cmake stuff that Goeffroy Couprie posted
>>> running
>>> on Windows? I never had much success (see
>>>
>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2010-July/005113.html).
>>>
>>
>> yes, we contacted recently, and he gave me the link to latest configs.
>> So i could use them as reference for adopting.
>
> So what was the issue with CMakeLists.txt? Were they just missing?
>