Am 13.05.2013 um 09:08 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski <benjamin.piwowar...@lip6.fr>:
> On May 12, 2013, at 17:51 , Stephan Witt <st.w...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Am 12.05.2013 um 17:04 schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski >> <benjamin.piwowar...@lip6.fr>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would be happy to participate (in July/August) to make the cmake building >>> process complete and more fool-proof on mac (a few months ago I was able to >>> build successfully a working bundle). >> >> What do you call a working bundle? It has to contain the frameworks it >> depends on. >> Anyway, I have no preference for one build system or the other. And of >> course your >> support would be greatly appreciated. > > A working bundle would be the full LyX application (i.e. the LyX.app folder > currently constructed correctly only by auto-tools). This would be a regression for the user. She has to download and install Qt frameworks herself and the remaining spell checker would be the "Native" one. Currently the Qt and spell checker frameworks are added to the bundle as private frameworks. The resulting bundle I'd call the "full LyX application". As I said already, this is done by a shell script and not by the auto-tools make install. When make install from CMake produces an useful result like the auto-tools make install we have a good starting point. Then one can change the mentioned shell script or add its functionality to the CMake package build. > I don't have a strong preference towards any build system, but the only point > is that having to take care of updating both each time is cumbersome and > error-prone. So that's why I am ready to work on it - but only if cmake is > chosen as the only build system (otherwise, it does not make sense to put so > much effort in maintaining both working build systems). Yes, and I have to admit I never had a problem with multiple build systems. Surely because auto-tools and CMake both are working fine for me most of the time. Stephan
