On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:32 PM, bjoern michaelsen - Sun Microsystems - Hamburg Germany <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There is also "Pure CMake". But as I said earlier, it is probably >> smarter to first go "CMake + Unix" and then transition to pure CMake. > > You are severely underestimating the dark magic done in the build > system (mostly concentrated in a few "ugly" modules"), if you believe > all current ops can be done in "Pure CMake". There are some pretty > mystical textprocessing operations done using sed, awk, perl etc. > throughout the build. I want to note out the following so no-one will think that I am a religious zealot: CMake *will* take more work up front than GNU Make (which, as I understand, already works). It may be a lot of work, it may be a sh*tload of work. The question is, whether it is worth it. This is a question of analysis and (especially) testing. > Going for "Pure CMake" is going to be a lot of > work and is spoiled if it cant be completed as there is little worth in > "mostly pure CMake". To request resources for such a project on the > prospect that it "will probably work out" is unlikely to work out > with any of the big supporters of OOo. I don't think you can ever get rid of Cygwin completely. At the very least you need Flex and Bison and the easiest way to install them is to use Cygwin. Then you might as well install other tools as well. "Pure CMake" was mostly listed for completeness. I guess it should have said that transitioning to it can be done as an independent step, at a later time, and only if it is deemed necessary at the time. And most importantly: you get CMake's benefits even if you never do it at all. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
