Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño escreveu:
I honestly don't think it will take 10 more years for a tool to match
the benefits of cmake with a better syntax. As I have said before, I
think it is only 3 or so years away from happening.
It is harder than you think, but maybe you are right. If you look at
Ohloh: http://www.ohloh.net/projects/3238?p=CMake
It shows CMake as a 51 person year project at a cost of 2.7 million.
That may not actually be far from the mark...
What bugs me is the fact that cmake achieves like 90% of build system
features that I'd consider important to have. Better scripting and
autotools's configure parameters (--enable-debug, --without-something)
is what I miss the most.
Command line options have been a feature request for some time. If
someone comes up with a good way to do them, I have no problem putting
them in CMake. I guess the problem has always been the iterative nature
of the CMakeCache.txt file. --help has to basically run the entire
build script to find all the arguments. So, no need to fork on this.
If there is something you can not do with the current cmake language
that could be done in lua (other than aesthetics), let us know, and
provide a patch, or even a report, and most likely we will put it in
CMake. So, no need to fork here...
So, apart of forking, a build system that wants to be better than cmake
should reimplement 90% of cmake's features, just to add those 10% missing?
I would say add the 10% to the current CMake. I think we (cmake
developers) are very open to adding new and useful things to CMake.
Complete tested patches are always welcome. Before wasting time on
creating one, it is a good idea to discuss the idea on the list to make
sure there is buy in.
-Bill
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
