bjoern michaelsen - Sun Microsystems - Hamburg Germany wrote: > 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 ...
Uhm, we've got no problem with bash anymore, everything should work fine with either tcsh and bash. If not, it's a bug ... Heiner [...] -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
