yeKcim a écrit :
Will we continue to use cmake and autogen ? I think that we have to
make a choice now or give me explication ?
Sure, you're right.
I used autotools then cmake then go back to autotools.
Autotools is quite difficult to maintain, there's lot of version, etc.
but it is well supported for packaging.
Cmake is more user-friendly, it used (too much ?) colors and so on. I
hope it's easier to maintain but I can't judge it since I never made big
modification for cmake compilation.
BUT currently, the cmake process is nearly only tested for cmake 2.4 and
some distros not so old still used cmake 2.2 and it can maybe make it
harder for packager. At least for debian, making package from a source
with autotools is quite easy, I'm not sure about cmake.
But well, I have left cmake for another reason. The debug information is
not complete. In gdb, you can do:
- break AIStupidEngine::Refresh
and it will work but "break ai_stupid_engine.cpp:90" (with 90 a line of
the source code file) is not supported with the binary produced by cmake
and is supported if the binary has been produced by autotools. I do know
why, but it's sometimes really annoying...
So for the moment, if I have to choose, I would choose autotools but
perhaps in the future, cmake will be probably a better choice.
Matt (gentildemon)
_______________________________________________
Wormux-dev mailing list
Wormux-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wormux-dev
