> 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?
>
Yea, it was a kind of a jab at MS and Mr. Gates more than anything. As I
noted, I have very little experience with either CMake or autoconf, but I
love to tear things apart. I guess our fathers work on cars, we debug
code...
I've "worked with" IBM, Digital Vax, Unix/Linux, fortran, pascal, cobol,
Ada, c, and even Forth. I wasn't referring to OpenGC ( I thought I said
that, my apologies), but more to the OS and that "free" site handing out
.dll files but not the source.
Given a chose, first I asked for the 50/50, then a phone call, and my final
answer would be autoconf since I just went throught a lot of pain to figure
it out. I think OpenGC can stand to have an "unofficial" copy on the site
;-)
Regards
John w.
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
