>> Switching is only one half of the problem, ther other part is >> maintenance. So, *assuming* that the the transition could be somehow >> done, would the developers be eager to maintain it? > > Speaking just for myself, "No", but that's okay because I'm not eager > to maintain the autoconf system either - I try to only add new > configure-time options or new dependencies when it's really necessary. > I think the people who deal with our build system the most are Ben and > Ondrej; I'd have no objections to changes if they didn't.
My only experience with cmake was back in 2002 when I unpacked VTK and became instantly irritated that I had to install an additional package to even attempt building it. Although, judging by the headlines (http://lwn.net/Articles/188693) I'm guessing preinstalled cmake installations will become more commonplace. I am not really partial to any build system. The autoconf we have now works, but it is certainly not pretty. However, hardly any of the complexity is there for cross-platform portability, rather it is there because of the plethora of optional packages we support. I echo Roy's comment, though. Rebuilding the build system is much lower on my priority list than adding certain functionality to the library core, for example. But then again that is probably because it works for me on all of the Linux/OSX/AIX/IRIX platforms I tend to use. Are you having any particular issues, or is the current system just aesthetically irritating? -Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
