On 2010-Feb-28 21:32:10 -0800, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: >On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:36 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Bjarke Hammersholt Roune >> <bjarke.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Can a standard spkg in Sage use CMake? ... >> No, at present, it is definitely not OK for a standard spkg to use CMake. ... >> By the way, the cmake source tarball is about 3.4MB and takes 4 >> minutes to compile on sage.math. So size and time wise it is not >> unreasonable that it could be a standard Sage package at some point.
Another way of looking at it is that Singular is ~7.5MB (I'm not sure how long it takes to build) so this would effectively increase the size of Singular by nearly 50%. >For what is worth, we use cmake in FEMhub (femhub.org) as a standard >package and we never had any problems with that. If CMake was widely used (and hence can be listed as a prerequisite for building Sage - like gmake, bash etc) then it would have no overhead for Sage. Likewise, if it was used by a number of skpgs then the additional overhead would be amortised across lots of packages. >I like cmake and I use it for all my projects, that involve some C++ coding. There are lots of make-like tools available and different people use different ones. One disadvantage of this is that where a large project pulls in bits from lots of different sources (like Sage), this can result in lots of different make-like tools being required. A quick check suggests that I have accumulated 8 different ones on this system in order to build all the software I use. -- Peter Jeremy
pgpb5q6mhOEdp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
