Ghiora Drori wrote:
Having Used cmake (I have no association with them) I found it much
easier to handle build systems with the cmake.
then with the autotool chain which I did get to meddle with quite a
bit in the past.
Have a nice day.
You know, after so much marketing speech one would expect to have some
sort of actual content. You have said NOTHING about why cmake is better.
From past experience with cmake, I can give you one major con for cmake
- it requires anyone who wants to build the project to install cmake.
With the auto tools, I (the developer) need to have autoconf, automake
and aclocal* but the end user only needs "make", the actual compiler and
a bourne shell processor. Furthermore, if all the end user has is a
bourne shell script processor, and I have done my job well (which takes
no more than running "autoscan" every once in a while), then the user
will get a complete list of the fact she is missing a
compiler/make/library when she runs ./configure.
* If I am going to be using libtool then the end user does need libtool
as well. However, what I said about missing compiler applies to libtool
as well.
With cmake, the user gets a source package that does not have a simple
makefile on one hand, yet does not have the standard ./configure on the
other. I need to trust the user to install cmake in order to build my
project. Now, if I'm compiling a huge project such as KDE, that may not
be that big of an issue. Huge projects have the right to demand stuff
installed on the system before they can do their stuff. If, however, all
I need is a bunch of files with a simple build environment, then cmake
is too onerous a demand to make from my users.
Shachar
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
