Am Montag, 13. August 2007 04:56:47 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
> > Since KDE switched to CMake (currently depending on CMake 2.4.5)
> > many other projects switched to it.
>
> And many did not. So what's the point?
The point is that about 2 years ago, almost no OSS project used CMake. Now,
many do. That means for a project switching to CMake that the project can
look how other projects solved certain issues. 2 years ago that would have
been much harder.
Also, today there are "finding" scripts for almost every package
("FindOpenBabel.cmake" and so on). That is another thing which was not true 2
years ago.
> > Because of that, there are many projects to look at in case of problems.
> >
> > There is even a "am2cmake" script and other scripts:
> >
> > http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdesdk/cmake/
> >
> > I would never start a transition to autotools, I'd always choose CMake.
> > My second best suggestion would be sCons: http://scons.tigris.org/
> > (written in Python)
>
> And I would always choose autotools, when I need a powerful and flexible
> build system, because both scons and cmake do not offer the flexibility.
I am not sure what you mean with flexibility. Do you mean OS-specific
compilation? That is of course possible (win, mac, beos, embedded stuff,
linux, *bsd, ...)
The only big reason sCons wasn't choosen by KDE was that it didn't scale to
the size of KDE. It took several minutes to "configure" kdelibs. AFAIK that
issue is not yet solved. Other than that I think sCons is also a very good
buildsystem.
Carsten
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
