On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Paul Melis <p...@science.uva.nl> wrote:
> Robert Osfield wrote: > >> Hi Sukender, >> >> I apply a pain vs gain to this type of decision. How much pain is it >> to maintain 2.4.x support vs how much pain it would be to those who'd >> have to upgrade, and also against how much we have to gain in >> streamlining our own maintenance work. Right now for Cmake 2.4.x it >> doesn't seem too difficult to retain support. >> >> > One reason I like CMake 2.6 more than 2.4 is that it seems to have worked > around the stupid and time-consuming "relink" step that it did when doing > "make install". When I call "make" and it finishes I expect to have a fully > built set of libraries and executables, not something that isn't directly > installable by simply copying files to a destination directory. > > I'm on a system where only CMake 2.4 is available, btw, but it's hardly any > pain to compile and install 2.6 by hand. Unless I'm patching CVS I've actually gotten used to just using the prebuilt binaries on CMake.org's website for i386 Linux. They seem to work fine pretty much anywhere I've tried them. http://www.cmake.org/cmake/resources/software.html http://www.cmake.org/files/v2.6/ -- Philip Lowman
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
