Jussi Pakkanen wrote:
Compared to dmake, CMake has the following advantages for OOo.
- actively being developed
- used widely and thus known by lots of people
- native support for all major platforms and IDEs
- cross-platform autoconf replacement
- straightforward syntax, no shell magicks required (but you can use
them if you want to)
Other nice features can be found here:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/Really_Cool_CMake_Features
Actually, cmake has way to much features ;-)
The key requirements for a build system for OOo is that it has:
- few dependencies
- portable
- small
- limited to the set of features absolutely needed
(every additional feature is a lockin)
While dmake might be obscure, it fits these requirements pretty well,
and more is lost than gained IMHO by moving to CMake.
CMake might have something going for it as a replacement for the mess
that is autotools, however thats not an issue with OOo.
If you would offer a migration path from dmake to plain GNU make and
from tcsh to bash, that might be quite interesting ...
A recurring theme in OOo conference presentations and similar material
seems to be that hacking on OOo is hard for newcomers partly because
it is such a complex beast to build. Making it easier could bring in
more contributors.
dmake is not what makes OOo complex.
Have Fun,
Björn Michaelsen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
