Ondrej Certik wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I've heard some good things about cmake — LLVM, googletest, and Boost >> are all looking at switching to it — so I wanted to see if we could >> simplify our autoconf+makefile system by using it. The biggest wins I >> see from going to cmake are: >> 1. It can autogenerate the Visual Studio project files instead of >> needing them to be maintained separately >> 2. It lets you write functions and modules without understanding >> autoconf's mix of shell and M4. >> 3. Its generated Makefiles track header dependencies accurately so we >> might be able to add private headers efficiently. > > I am switching to cmake with all my python projects, as it is rock > solid, supports building in parallel (if I have some C++ and Cython > extensions), and the configure part works well. > > The only disadvantage that I can see is that one has to learn a new > syntax, which is not Python. But on the other hand, at least it forces > one to really just use cmake to write build scripts in a standard way, > while scons and other Python solutions imho encourage to write full > Python programs, which imho is a disadvantage for the build system, as > then every build system is nonstandard. > [obirrelevance]
Isn't it strange how nobody every complained about the significance of whitespace in makefiles: only the fact that leading tabs were required rather than just-any-old whitespace. I guess some people just home in on things to complain about. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ Want to know? Come to PyCon - soon! http://us.pycon.org/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
