On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Johan Hake <johan.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday August 9 2010 10:09:26 Johan Hake wrote: >> On Monday August 9 2010 09:46:16 Garth N. Wells wrote: >> > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 09:41 -0700, Johan Hake wrote: >> > > On Monday August 9 2010 09:25:44 Garth N. Wells wrote: >> > > > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 09:13 -0700, Johan Hake wrote: >> > > > > Will CMake eventually supersede SCons? If so what are the reason >> > > > > behind such a decision? >> > > > >> > > > Maybe. CMake is there now for anyone to try (it's not yet complete). >> > > > SCons and CMake can co-exist so we can experiment before making any >> > > > decision. >> > > >> > > Ok. >> > > >> > > > We rely on a home-baked SCons (simula-scons), whereas CMake is >> > > > maintained by others. simula-scons is hard for the uninitiated >> > > > (including me) to work with. CMake seems easier (twe'll see if that's >> > > > true after playing around with it). There are quite a few test files >> > > > already available of the shelf for dependencies, and it also has a >> > > > nice GUI which I think users will appreciate. >> > > >> > > I see these points. I wonder how the daily user experience will be with >> > > CMake. Any unessesary recompilations? >> > >> > So far, it only seems that the SWIG-generated files are recompiled >> > unnecessarily. I'm sure that that can be fixed. >> >> Ok, so this means I can go ahead and compile DOLFIN using CMake right now? > > That went sweet! Ridiculous simple! The amount of files we need to provide > were also extremely small. > > Nice work Johannes!
Thanks :-) It's actually only something I played with during the rainy days in the summer. > > Johan > >> Looking forward to see how it works! >> >> > > I have to say that SCons, together with the homebrewed simula-scons >> > > have fitted my need very well. I have also been able to use >> > > simula-scons for other softwares. >> > > >> > > That said, I know of several large code bases (KDE included) that >> > > ditched SCons for CMake for the same reasons you mention. And I have >> > > also been happy with compiling the CMake dependent libraries DOLFIN >> > > depends on. >> > >> > Trilinos now uses CMake, and has gone from being a nightmare to build to >> > being easy. >> > >> > > > Apparently CMake has built-in support for creating packages on Mac >> > > > which is useful. >> > > >> > > Ok, and Windows packages? >> > >> > It's claimed to work . . . . >> : >> :) Yes, it should work. I have good experiences with creating binary installers for both Mac and Windows for another CMake based project (vmtk, vmtk.org). Johannes >> Johan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >> Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
