lux-integ wrote: > On Saturday 10 November 2012 00:09:02 Ken Moffat wrote: >> I loathe cmake [ reinventing the bumpy wheel of configure, but with >> edges instead of the fairly smooth curves, in my biased opinion ] so >> I've long since given up on kde. > > what a shame . > > cmake is the future. > It works will with c/c++, fortran less so ada) and even java is > underdevelopment (to replace ant !) > (I can envisage a revamped Apache openoffice, postgresql, openjdk etc -all > migrating soon to cmake ) > > cmake is a bit tedius to translate some things from autoconf (the configH > porting can be tedious) ut once done, tewaking and maintence is easy. It > gives better control on libraries, executables and linking. For instance I > had problems linking with atlas9 libraries (fortran) that chocked autconf > but was doable with cmake. Thanfuly atlas10 has overcome these.
I generally agree with your comments, but there are some drawbacks to cmake that I think makes it cumbersome. For the lfs user who only wants to look at what is needed and then build a package, the equivalent to ./configure --help is not always complete and the -D variables don't seem to be very standardized. They are also generally a bit long. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
