Eric Noulard wrote:
2009/2/16 Bill Hoffman <bill.hoff...@kitware.com>:
Philip Lowman wrote:
A tertiary goal would be convincing the 3rd party dependencies to switch
to CMake for their native build systems.
I don't really like the "propaganda" idea :-)
Particularly for Open Source projects.
Open Source is about choice and openess.
Of course they would have a choice, we just want to make it an easy one.
I don't want to contribute to a voluntary CMake conversion.
However I'll be glad (as usual) to help anyone requesting for help with CMake.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say here???
Does this sound interesting?
I think it might be more interesting to start a campaign to push the cmake
files into those projects.
If someone propose the cmake files to the project it's different, it's a
potential project contribution :-)
That is what we are talking about here. If we had a set of cmake files
for various projects, it would be that much easier for a project to pick
up cmake.
Why shouldn't jpg,tiff,zlib, and friends not ship with good cmake files.
Because may be currently they don't need it?
They do, they just do not know it yet. :) If it was easy to build those
packages or find them prebuilt on windows and other systems except for
Linux distros that include them, we would not be having this conversation.
I guess if something like what you suggest was
created, it might push the developers of those projects to accept the CMake
files to avoid the partial fork in the project...
I'm not so sure that a project woul'd be forked because its build system
is not cmake, even if valuable cmake user do "fork" because they need
a cmake-ified version of the project.
I am pretty sure it would be a mini-fork of sorts. There will be minor
fixes for warnings and other issues found by using a new set of compilers.
My 2 cents about freedom.
No one is talking about taking away freedom here. We are just talking
about a strategy that will make it much easier to build software cross
platform. For any of us to devote time to this effort the potential up
side should be worked out. I see them as this:
1. Provide an easy way to incorporate some common libraries into CMake
based projects.
2. Increase the usage and user base of CMake.
3. If the cmake build system is accepted upstream, then that is one
less package that this group would have to maintain.
We are talking about freedom here. The freedom to build software with
the compiler, OS, and tool chain of your choice. :)
-Bill
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
