Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just like autotools, and (b) we have yet to see a compelling reason to undertake the transition...which would have to be a *very* compelling one.
On May 15, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcann...@gmail.com> wrote: > Em 15-05-2014 20:15, Maxime Boissonneault escreveu: >> Le 2014-05-15 18:27, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit : >>> On May 15, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcann...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Alright, but now I'm curious as to why you decided against it. >>>> Could please elaborate on it a bit ? >>> OMPI has a long, deep history with the GNU Autotools. It's a very >>> long, complicated story, but the high points are: >>> >>> 1. The GNU Autotools community has given us very good support over the >>> years. >>> 2. The GNU Autotools support all compilers that we want to support, >>> including shared library support (others did not, back in 2004 when we >>> started OMPI). >>> 3. The GNU Autotools can fully bootstrap a tarball such that the end >>> user does not need to have the GNU Autotools installed to build an >>> OMPI tarball. > > I have doubt about #3 too, but : > #1 should not be a problem for the amount of projects already using cmake; > #2 too, as gromacs [ http://gromacs.org/ ] has been using cmake since the 4.6 > series, and it has tons of options for compilers, math libraries, cuda, > opencl ... > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > us...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
