Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 08:28 schrieb Andreas Köhler: > > >> (Actually, CMake might be an interesting alternative, especially > > >> because we do > > >> not use many "convenience libraries" but instead directly build a > > >> whole bunch > > >> of shared libraries. > > > > > > I just wanted to tell you that I am working on that now, in case anyone > > > started as well :-) > > > > Quick question.. Does using cmake require cmake to be installed to build > > from the tarball?
Yes it does. Andreas is right. The whole point of cmake is that it will perform all those platform-checks (more precisely: host and target checks) which used to be done by the autoconf-generated shell scripts which nobody was able to understand. But the price for this is that cmake is required to be installed on the host. > > If you only need cmake in order to build the build system but you do > > NOT need it to build from the tarball, then that's probably okay. I > > think it's okay to add dependencies to build from SVN. But I'd be > > extremely hesitant to require a new build dependency to the tarball. I'm with Andreas here: If we're talking about the 2.4.x timeframe, KDE4 will have made it into most distros, which implies cmake will be there as well. Also, *building* gnucash is getting a lower and lower priority - people expect a pre-built package to be available anyway, and for that of course the build tool doesn't matter. > As projects like KDE are switching to CMake, I do not think > that GnuCash will add a unique build dependency that nobody will > maintain in a few years. I would rather try and see what CMake can help > us with. BTW, I think this would remove the dependency on libtool. Yes, it will make libtool completely go away. Relief! :-) Christian _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
