using cmake too, but that said, it
>is very new. If you have any problems or issues, we'd love to hear about
>it!
>
>/Jeff
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Wood, Aaron [mailto:aaron.w...@verizon.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:28 AM
>To: dev@mesos.apache.org
>S
about it!
/Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Wood, Aaron [mailto:aaron.w...@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:28 AM
To: dev@mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: [E] Re: The state of cmake
Thanks for the info everyone. I think this might be good enough for us to move
forward with since we
r
>> whatever), which is super nice to know how far along you are. That's a
>>very
>> cool feature that I just love.
>>
>> I agree that we sorely need a concise list of features that are missing.
>> We need to understand what's missing, and judge how often missing
t;
> /Jeff
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Schwartzmeyer [mailto:andsc...@microsoft.com.INVALID]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:12 PM
> To: dev@mesos.apache.org
> Subject: RE: The state of cmake
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> The biggest difference right now is
en missing features are
used, in order to "fully bake" the cmake build system in Mesos.
/Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Andy Schwartzmeyer [mailto:andsc...@microsoft.com.INVALID]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:12 PM
To: dev@mesos.apache.org
Subject: RE: The state of cmake
Hi
Hi Aaron,
The biggest difference right now is that the Java and Python bindings are not
built whatsoever with the CMake build system. We also do not have an install
target, so the CMake output is kind of stuck in “developer mode” and it won’t
generate an installable package.
I probably would
