On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 12:02 +0100, Alex Neundorf wrote: > > Maybe the most important is that autoconf is really mature, > well > understood and supports tons of platforms. People will know > how to > work with it because it's used everywhere. > > I think we could discuss that without end ;-) > Just IMHO: > cmake >= 2.4.3 is mature (it builds e.g. ParaView, KDE4, cdrkit, > OpenWengo, ...) > it supports tons of platforms > although autotools are used everywhere they are not well understood > everywhere > cmake is easier to understand (just one tool instead of > automake+autoconf+libtool+m4+shell, ok, here we are talking just about > autoconf...)
I maintained a port of paraview for FreeBSD for a year or so. It convinced me that cmake was quite possibly the only tool worse than automake. Every single point release of cmake, the paraview build broke because some macro had changed in a minor yet incompatible way. And, while I can eventually figure out autotools issues, I basically got to wait until google figured out my problem for paraview. At least the automake maintainers only uselessly break things every minor release or so :/ -- Eric Anholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
