Sorry for hitting multiple mailing lists... I'm currently going through the process of compiling various packages for Windows (proj, libtiff/geotiff, gdal, libLAS) and hitting the various (but typical) bumps...
In my group at SRI, we've more-or-less completely switched to cmake for configuring and building our software. The benefits are: * a single set of configuration files for Linux/Windows; * makes the process by which dependent packages are discovered systematic; * makes the process of installing software systematic; * thus making the package you're building easy for other packages to discover; * running tests can be integrated into the build. While cmake has its warts, it is much less arcane and easier to use than autoconf scripts used for Unix and Linux systems. It has been a godsend when building software which depends on several third party packages, several of our own packages, and where the selection of package versions, compiler, and 32-bit vs 64-bit, may depend on the particular project. libLAS already uses cmake. But it appears to be the exception in the realm of geospatial software. Is there any interest in adopting cmake for other packages? Incidentally, the choice is not either/or... For example, GeographicLib supports Windows solution files, vanilla makefiles, autoconf, and cmake. (And I know from this experience that the cmake configuration is much the easiest to maintain.) Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to undertake this work myself. But if people have questions about cmake, I may be able to help. --Charles -- Charles Karney <[email protected]> SRI International, Princeton, NJ 08543-5300 Tel: +1 609 734 2312 Fax: +1 609 734 2662 _______________________________________________ osgeo4w-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev
