On Friday 26 May 2006 21:00, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > > The problem with the use-(g)make decision is that you are stuck with > > using unintuitive variable names to alter the build process. > > > Then dump it and develop with VC++. Or some other compiler with a > better (or just different ;-) *NATIVE* build system. I mean really, if > you don't like gmake, how is that CMake's problem?
You have to understand where I come from; I'm a core developer of KWord; an application that doesn't even run on Windows (due to legal as well as technical reasons). I don't even have a Windows installation. (Haven't use the system in years, actually). > I think what you're > really saying is you like Ant and you want things to be like you > already know. Not ant; I just proposed one feature from it; the others came from unsermake. A python based tool KDE used before. But it still had to much auto*-isms so we removed that. But, to directly answer your assertion; the most human feeling of me feeling lost when there is something new to learn is not the reason for my emails here. I honestly find it counter productive of you to go for that excuse. Its soo easy. The suggestions I made here are an attempt to make cmake (which I _am_ using daily) get better. To make it the best by learning from all the build systems I have had to use over the years. CMake is not perfect, its still growing and I wish to help you guys by providing a list of things I would really appreciate to see. With that cleared up; you may want to go back to my initial mail in this thread and look at it anew :-) -- Thomas Zander
pgpaI5sRBJggM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
