Am Mittwoch 02 April 2008 schrieb Alexander Neundorf: > > - the eclipse project is totally useless without that option as the > > project are about editing the source, not just triggering the build from > > a GUI :-/ > > Not really. If you build in-source (which is usually not recommended) > everything is just fine. If you build out-of-source, and the build dir is > NOT a subdirectory if the source dir, a "linked resource" to the source > files is created, so that works then too.
Can the variable be included into the list of variables, seen be ccmake and cmake-gui? This way, you don't have to remember it. This can be dependent on the position of source and build directory to each other (means: only when that option makes sense). > > Why aren't there options for generators? They could ask about the > > Makefile type and about creating that .project file in the source dir. > > The current way is really hard to sell to users. The above command line > > should be: $ cmake -GEclipse ../certi_src > > The CDT4 is irrelevant and even hurts if JDT support for Java is ever > > added. > > I don't know the details, but wouldn't we need a different generator when > creating a project file for Java ? And then you create a mixed project... No, if possible, it should be "one IDE -> one generator". > > It is also irrelevant that it uses Makefiles because that may also > > change?! > > Well, exactly for the case that this might change it is not irrelevant, > because then you have to tell cmake what you want, makefiles or ant or > whatever together with eclipse project files. That's why I said that we need generator options, and those should not be mixed into the generator name because there is no other way... The Makefile generator(s) has/have the same problems. I see this as a usability issue. > > And if no make is available but nmake, why does the user actually > > have to specify that? On Linux, you don't even have a choice and this > > makes the name even more questionable. > > Yes, it's a long name, but it's consistent and self-documenting :-) Hey, it doesn't contain the default compiler name for each Makefile generator ;) > > The WIKI Eclipse entry is also hard to understand: in "Accessing the > > Source and Advanced Editing Features", it is not clear wether the extra > > definition is needed or not. It is missing a conclusion like: do it that > > way and you'll can do anything in Eclipse like normal. > > It's a wiki, please create an account and improve the wording :-) The problem is Eclipse knowledge, here. As I said, I didn't get what's the way to make that all work. I don't care which one, just not in-source (because there is no "make distclean", is that really that hard to implement?). HS _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
