Op zaterdag 03-01-2009 om 11:58 uur [tijdzone -0800], schreef Graham
Percival:
> I had great success converting another project to cmake last Aug,
> but this isn't anything I'd attempt with my current situation. I
> might propose it for 2.15 or 2.17 (next fall or sometime next
> year), though.
Hmm. Two years ago I had great success converting a cmake project to
autotools. Maybe things have changed, but at the time some of my
reasons to drop cmake were
* used a home-grown MACRO language, which
* was mostly undocumented (half-baken proprietary documentation in hardcopy
was available) and buggy
* had nasty differences between builtin (c-made) and user-built macros
* had error prone dependency generation, one of the (at least) two reasons for
* often leaving the build tree in a broken state after ^C
* generates makefiles (adding an evil level of caching; one of the reasons
for us to reject automake) that easily go stale (unlike automake: often
unnoticed)
* mostly ignored common unix standards (not to mention GNU standards that
LilyPond must provide) (clean/install/prefix/DESTDIR)
* had no provision for package-config to find libraries, but
* used /usr/bin/find (instead of gcc-based tests) to guess/find libraries
* used hard-coded /usr to start the search, making
* cross compiling (instead of mostly automagic: autotools) next to
impossible,
and would also
* barf when multiple versions of libraries are present below /usr
Have things changed?
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
