> On Sun, 2001-11-11 at 01:37, Damion Shelton wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback everyone - that's an impressive amount of
message
> > traffic! I've decided to go with the CMake build system from
> > public.kitware.com/CMake - it uses a generic "makefile" (not unix
format)
> > syntax which is parsed by an executable (cmake) into makefiles for the
> > various unix flavors and windows VC++ or Borland projects. It currently
> > builds on (at least) the following Unix flavors:
> >
>
> So does that mean you won't accept an autoconf/automake based build
system?
>
> --
> Ross
I'll accept it.
The problem I have with Windows, FS2000 and others, and supported display
( see http://www.avsim.com ) is they make LOUSY learning tools. Not a whole
lot one can learn form a xxxx.o or xxxxx.dll file or source locked away.
Over the last couple of months I've dug into both the FG and OpenGC source,
Linux, gnu, tried a number of things, and learned a lot from the effort of
others. If you want to play "fighter-pilot" go buy a version of the latest
and greatest flight sim and be happy. OTOH if you appreciate the intricacies
of actually flying (that's another story) and the engineering efforts
required to try an replicate that experience then IMO open source solutions
from the top to bottom is the best way to go.
Sometimes I have trouble with "gcc -c hello.cpp"; a nice clean simple
understandable build package that I can dissect if I chose without having to
envoke mystical incantations to decipher would be appreciated.
Regards
John W.
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
