Ken Moffat wrote: > I agree that version-control packages are used for a lot more than > programming, and that tcp wrappers can be in either place. But for > cmake, I have to mildly disagree (mildly, because I no-longer build > it, and would need extremely strong reasons to build it again) - > in linux, it's a replacement for 'configure'. The only reason to > include it in the book is because a few packages require it. It's > better described as "a build system for programs (that want to be > able to run on windows)" :-)
cmake is now required for mysql. :( I haven't gotten into it much, but the output when building is pretty. I do think the syntax for autotools is a bit convoluted (m4) and suspect that cmake is an improvement, but there is a learning curve. I've been doing Qt development for a few years and cmake reminds me a bit of qmake. When you get used to it, qmake is pretty nice, but only applicable to Qt based programs. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
