Thanks Thomas for the answer. Actually, I understand pretty well your position, but I had the impression that making a python based solution for building was kind of reinventing the wheel. As Jelle, I feel that Kitware are quite impressive and could make your life easier (at least it was my case). For example of opensource projects using cmake, you can look at OSG ( http://www.openscenegraph.org/projects/osg/wiki/Build/CMake) or Opencv ( http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/).
Jelle, as I am not very experienced with project handling I wouldn't comment on your idea. I'll let you and Thomas discuss any further. cheers, Loïc Simon On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:52 AM, jelle feringa <jelleferi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > My feeling is that Cmake, CCache, CPackage, CTest (well, any of the > development tools by kitware are duly impressive) offers the best set of > tools in terms of quality. I completely agree with your argument that > packaging, testing, compiling really are complex and specialized tasks. More > importantly, the current approach is not perfect, but the simplest workable > solution we can come up with. ( oh, and Thomas made it use the > multiprocessing module, so its even _fast_ these days. how 'bout that folks > ;') > > One idea that might professionalize PythonOCC development is to build > working packages. > For instance, compilation & packaging surely is a perfect work package. > It could be great to have a table of such packages on our wiki, even to the > extent to put a cost to it and if possible identify a developer(s) for this > work package. This way, developing PythonOCC could become more of a > distributed effort. > > Useful idea? > > -jelle > > > _______________________________________________ > Pythonocc-users mailing list > Pythonocc-users@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users > >
_______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
