Greg Ercolano wrote: > Matthias Melcher wrote: [...] >> Anyway, back to CMake ;-) > > Yes, cmake looks cool. I didn't realize how well it worked > across all platforms, even the VS IDE.
Yes, really impressive. This would solve one big problem that we developers have: no one wants to use such a MS IDE ;-) > I used it to compile on unix too, cause once you run cmake once, > it pretty much breaks the regular unix Makefiles to where running > 'configure' doesn't get them to work again, so 'cmake' with the Unix > generator at least gets them working again. (Still puts the test > executables > in a bin directory, but at least that shows it's consistent!) I made this experience too, when I first tried CMake on Linux. But then I found out that you can do out-of-source builds (e.g. in a completely unrelated directory), and that is what I did then. This is probably what is intended by the CMake developers anyway (we should really read the docs now :-) , and I've started doing this already). Another way to not clutter the source tree is to use a subdirectory, e.g. "build", to generate the Makefiles and then run make. We could even do this by convention (reserve the build dir for CMake builds) and add it to the svn:ignore list, so that it doesn't show up in svn stat. With this in mind, using the bin (sub-)directory for the executables is IMHO no problem. "make install" should install them in the proper dir's anyway. Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
