Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should we continue maintaining the manual Makefiles? #526

Closed
milancurcic opened this issue Sep 17, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #657
Closed

Should we continue maintaining the manual Makefiles? #526

milancurcic opened this issue Sep 17, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #657
Labels
build: make Issue with stdlib's manual makefile build question Further information is requested

Comments

@milancurcic
Copy link
Member

milancurcic commented Sep 17, 2021

With stdlib now being also an fpm package, as well as CMake support, should we continue maintaining the manual Makefiles?

I argued for manual Makefiles early on (before fpm) due to the possible absence of CMake or a sufficient version of CMake on many systems. However, the cost of maintaining manual Makefiles is quite high relative to the fpm or CMake build. For example, adding a new module and tests requires editing multiple Makefiles in the source tree. And it gets messier when trying to merge some older PRs, as the manual Makefiles would often be in conflict with the target branch.

We could run a poll on Discourse and see what users there think. I think this may be a good time to remove manual Makefile support. What do you think?

@milancurcic milancurcic added the question Further information is requested label Sep 17, 2021
@awvwgk
Copy link
Member

awvwgk commented Sep 17, 2021

I'm 100% for dropping those, so far they have only been a maintenance burden and a constant source for build errors.

@jvdp1
Copy link
Member

jvdp1 commented Sep 17, 2021 via email

@milancurcic
Copy link
Member Author

Discourse poll here.

@certik
Copy link
Member

certik commented Sep 17, 2021

Now when fpm supports stdlib, I am fine dropping them.

I don't have time right now, but I really want to provide cmake and make backends for fpm. That way we only have to make sure things build using fpm in stdlib, and fpm takes care of cmake and make and we can also add meson, etc.

@awvwgk awvwgk added the build: make Issue with stdlib's manual makefile build label Sep 18, 2021
@14NGiestas
Copy link
Member

Keeping a makefile for a project like this is kinda annoying because of the non-trivial dependencies and it tends to get outdated. I usually don't like cmake much because I always forget the -DMAXRANK... thing... err... well I forgot again but it works well enough and isn't so complicated adding new files to it.
Also with fpm I just run the ./ci/fpm_deployment.sh, cd stdlib-fpm, and I can review a patch easily, build it, create a quick app/main.f90 to play around.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
build: make Issue with stdlib's manual makefile build question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants