Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Chris Cannam
On Tuesday 07 Nov 2006 00:44, Guillaume Laurent wrote: but it's true that at one point or another, we'll have to migrate to cmake No, we won't. There is absolutely no good reason why we should always use the same build system as KDE. In fact, so far we would probably have been better off

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Guillaume Laurent
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 17:01, Chris Cannam wrote: No, we won't. There is absolutely no good reason why we should always use the same build system as KDE. Beyond the fact that they have solved the same problems that we would have to solve, there isn't. How about we finally, for the

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Chris Cannam
On Tuesday 07 Nov 2006 16:13, Guillaume Laurent wrote: On Tuesday 07 November 2006 17:01, Chris Cannam wrote: No, we won't. There is absolutely no good reason why we should always use the same build system as KDE. Beyond the fact that they have solved the same problems that we would have

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Chris Cannam
On Tuesday 07 Nov 2006 17:36, Guillaume Laurent wrote: On Tuesday 07 November 2006 17:30, Chris Cannam wrote: On Tuesday 07 Nov 2006 16:13, Guillaume Laurent wrote: How do you think KDE chooses its own ? Ooh, I don't know -- do you think they test some and pick the one that appears to

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas
On Monday, 6 November 2006 20:49, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: On Monday, 6 November 2006 20:27, Chris Cannam wrote: I was intending to refer to a single CMakeLists.txt and a single set of cmake generated files instead of one per directory. i.e. still using cmake, but without the

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas
On Tuesday, 7 November 2006 04:30, D. Michael McIntyre wrote: I rather like it, I must say. It looks and feels solid. Cons for scons other than abandonment, the damn thing always felt like we just barely had it working with the right combination of duct tape and kite string. There was some

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Chris Cannam
On Tuesday 07 Nov 2006 21:03, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: scons: the damned and infamous scons -c, combining the clean and uninstall functions in a single command. ?! Does it really do that? I have never, ever noticed. Chris

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas
On Tuesday, 7 November 2006 22:26, Chris Cannam wrote: On Tuesday 07 Nov 2006 21:03, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: scons: the damned and infamous scons -c, combining the clean and uninstall functions in a single command. ?! Does it really do that? I have never, ever noticed. Yes. There

Re: [Rosegarden-devel] CMake for Rosegarden (reorganisation branch)

2006-11-07 Thread D. Michael McIntyre
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 4:03 pm, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote: problems. But for me, the most irritating one was from scons: the damned and infamous scons -c, combining the clean and uninstall functions in a single command. Please help me with a big English swear at it. Yeah, definitely.