Hi, daniel g. siegel wrote:
<snip> > please understand, i dont want to bring up a "autotools is bad and it > should die"-thread, i just want to use my time to code and not to use > that time and effort on a build system. i also know, that i have stabbed > into a beehive, so please be kind lets keep this discussion objective > and realistic. Over at OpenWengo, we switched to CMake last year, and have not regretted it. There are some missing things (like an easy way to find the version of a library installed and set a minimum version dependency), but for the most part it's fast, transparently regenerated makefiles when needed when you run make, and compared to scons (which was used before) makes recompile time vastly smaller. It generates make files, nmake files, Visual Studio project files and more. That said, there is one concern which trumps all others when choosing a build system: how easy is it for someone with a plain vanilla distribution to compile & install your software? ./configure && make && make install is about as hard as it can be. any harder, and your barrier to entry is too high. That includes "cd build; cmake ..; make; make install;" (at least until it becomes ubiquitous). How does toc2 fare on this level? autoconf/automake are hard for the software developer, because the goal is to make it easy for the software builder. The trade-off pays off in community size, testers, developers and translators down the line. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
