On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Zach Welch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 14:51 -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> >> Nice work Zach. >> >> >> > >> > Thanks Dick. But nothing else for me to add? :) >> > >> >> >> Yes, I would ask that folks *try* out the CMake support. >> >> >> I think they have the potential to help some Windows folks who might >> get roadblocked at cygwin requirements. > > If I can talk you into updating it to matching the new CFLAGS used by > the autotools, agree to help keep all build scripts in sync, and answer > questions to help others in the community learn how to do the same, then > I endorse the addition of your CMake patch as an alternative to the > autotools-based build system, contingent upon inspection of the final > version of the patch that you want to have committed. > > Does that sound good to everyone?
There is not a whole lot of enthusiasm in the community for switching to CMake, even if it is better. There is certainly very little enthusiasm for maintaining two systems. Perhaps this will change, but there are no clear advantages for all those people out there who are happy with autoconf to learn CMake.... -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
