On Thursday, June 24, 2010, Elimar Green wrote: > I'm also not very familiar with CMake. When running the curses based > interface it seems fairly slick once you are used to it, as there are some > rather unintuitive things about that interface. It also is rather > unintuitive how to get access to the curses interface in the first place.
I've added a README.cmake file to the repository providing a brief overview about CMake in general, and specifically for FluidSynth. Here is an excerpt: There are also several alternative CMake front-ends, if you don't want to use the command line interface: * ncurses based program, for Linux and Unix: ccmake * GUI, Qt4 based program, multiplatform: cmake-gui * GUI, Windows native program: CMakeSetup.exe > Once someone is used to CMake though, it seems like it could be pretty > smooth from the user's end of things. I'm all for supporting both. There > isn't a lot of work at this point that needs to be done to maintain the > autotools method. A lot of the complexity of that system went away when > things went the pkg-config direction. So lets just support both for now. > We can always throw away the autotools method at another time, if it seems > useless. > > Elimar I agree about keeping both build systems for now. I offer again my help, if anybody needs support with the new buildsystem. About the CMake front-ends, I prefer cmake-gui over the ccmake ncurses. The command line one is faster but for FluidSynth, where you can choose a lot of options, the cmake-gui is a winner. Regards, Pedro _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
