Is this a criticism of CMake, autoconf, or the standard build practice? Both CMake and autoconf are open-source, the only distinction is that some existing projects rely on autoconf (and are therefore not particularly good candidates for CMake) and that CMake supports Borland and Visual C++ compilers in addition to GNU. On Unix platforms, you end up saying the same thing whether or not you've used CMake or autoconf: "make makefile"
In any case, OpenGC itself is "open source from top to bottom": OpenGC, FTGL/GLTT, Freetype, Plib, CMake, and autoconf are all free and open-source. The choice of what sim you plug into it is completely up to you. I happen to disagree that Windows and FS2000 make lousy learning tools (for all practical purposes I've never programmed on anything _but_ Windows), but that's a matter for a different argument. Anyways, are you saying that you'd rather use autoconf, CMake, or build from scratch? -Damion- ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Wojnaroski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] OpenGC build process "from the horse's mouth" > 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 > _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
