OK, I’ve said before in APPropriate Behaviour that I dislike build systems that build other build systems:
Some build procedures get so complicated that they spawn another build system that configures the build environment for the target system before building. An archetypal example is GNU autotools – which actually has a three-level build system. Typically the developers will run `autoconf`, a tool that examines the project to find out what questions the subsequent step should ask and generates a script called `configure`. The user downloads the source package and runs `configure`, which inspects the compilation environment and uses a collection of macros to create a Makefile. The Makefile can then compile the source code to (finally!) create the product.
As argued by Poul-Henning Kamp, this is a bad architecture that adds layers of cruft to work around code that has not been written to be portable to the environments where it will be used. Software written to be built with tools like these is hard to read, because you must read multiple languages just to understand how one line of code works.
One problem that arises in any cross-platform development is that assumptions about “the other platforms” (being the ones you didn’t originally write the software on) are sometimes made based on one of the following sources of information:
- a superficial inspection of the other platform
- analogy to the “primary” platform
An example of the third case: I used to work on the Mac version of a multi-platform product, certain core parts of which were implemented by cross-platform libraries. One of these libraries just needed a little configuration for each platform: tell it what file extension to use for shared libraries, and give it the path to the Registry.
What cost me a morning today was an example of the second case: assuming that all Macs are like the one you tried. Let me show you what I mean. Here’s the contents of /Developer on my Mac:
$ ls /Developer/ WebObjects
Wait, where’s Xcode? Oh right, they moved it for the App Store builds didn’t they?
$ ls /Applications/Xcode.app ls: /Applications/Xcode.app: No such file or directory
Since Xcode 2.5, Xcode has been relocatable and can live anywhere on the filesystem. Even if it is in one of the usual places, that might not be the version a developer wants to use. I keep a few different Xcodes around: usually the current one, the last one I knew everything worked on, and a developer preview release when there is one. I then also tend to forget to throw old Xcodes away, so I’ve got 4 different versions at the moment.
But surely this is all evil chaos from those crazy precious Mac-using weirdos! How can you possibly cope with all of that confusion? Enter xcode-select:
$ xcode-select -print-path /Applications/Xcode4.6.app/Contents/Developer
Xcode-select is in /usr/bin, so you don’t have the bootstrapping problem of trying to find the tool that lets you find the thing. That means that you can always rely on it being in one place for your scripts or other build tools. You can use it in a shell script:
or in a CMake file:
exec_program(/usr/bin/xcode-select ARGS -print-path OUTPUT_VARIABLE XCODE_DEVELOPER_DIR)
or in whatever other tool you’re using. The path is manually chosen by the developer (using the -switch option), so if for some reason it doesn’t work out (like the developer has deleted that version of Xcode without updating xcode-select), then you can fall back to looking in default locations.
Please do use xcode-select as a first choice for finding Xcode or the developer folder on any Mac system, particularly if your project uses a build generator. It’s more robust to changes—either from Apple or from the users of that Mac—than relying on the developer tools being installed to their default location.