Gonzalo Garramuño escreveu:
I honestly don't think it will take 10 more years for a tool to match
the benefits of cmake with a better syntax. As I have said before, I
think it is only 3 or so years away from happening.
What bugs me is the fact that cmake achieves like 90% of build system
On Monday 17 December 2007, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño escreveu:
I honestly don't think it will take 10 more years for a tool to match
the benefits of cmake with a better syntax. As I have said before, I
think it is only 3 or so years away from happening.
What bugs
Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
So, apart of forking, a build system that wants to be better than cmake
should reimplement 90% of cmake's features, just to add those 10% missing?
Kind of. Not really 90%, but more like 60-70%. It would first have to:
* gotten dependencies correct
Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño escreveu:
I honestly don't think it will take 10 more years for a tool to match
the benefits of cmake with a better syntax. As I have said before, I
think it is only 3 or so years away from happening.
It is harder than you think, but maybe
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
-Bill
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
Command line options have been a feature request for some time. If
someone comes up with a good way to do them, I have no problem putting
them in CMake. I guess the problem has always been the iterative nature
of the CMakeCache.txt file. --help has to basically run
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
And I'm using it every day with success. I think there should be some
common toolchain files, for instance, to compile to mingw32 target,
Bill Hoffman wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
I'm still having a lot of problems with it. Even cross-compiling on a
On Monday 17 December 2007, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
Command line options have been a feature request for some time. If
someone comes up with a good way to do them, I have no problem putting
them in CMake. I guess the problem has always been the iterative
On Monday 17 December 2007, Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Bill Hoffman wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
I'm still having a
Alexander Neundorf escreveu:
I don't think so.
analyzing the CMakeLists.txt means executing them basically completely.
See the following pseudocode:
if(WIN32)
define some args
else
define some other args
endif
You're right, I didn't give it much thought it deserves.
Oh, I think some
Bill Hoffman wrote:
It is harder than you think, but maybe you are right. If you look at
Ohloh: http://www.ohloh.net/projects/3238?p=CMake
It shows CMake as a 51 person year project at a cost of 2.7 million.
That may not actually be far from the mark...
Well, following the same standard,
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Bill Hoffman wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
I'm still having a lot of problems with it. Even
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 17 December 2007, Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Bill Hoffman wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 17 December 2007, Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Bill Hoffman wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
On Monday 17 December 2007, you wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 17 December 2007, Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Bill Hoffman wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
David C Thompson wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Monday 17 December 2007, Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Bill Hoffman wrote:
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
* good for cross-compilation.
CVS CMake (and the coming 2.6 CMake) have extensive support for cross
compilation.
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
I have my own UnixPaths and modules to work around most of the above,
Can you please post it ?
Sure. It is really two pieces. FindBuildDir.cmake which is called
first and Platforms/UnixPaths.cmake.
FindBuildDir does the hard check of setting up a couple of
Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
If there is something you can not do with the current cmake language
that could be done in lua (other than aesthetics), let us know, and
provide a patch, or even a report, and most likely we will put it in
CMake. So, no need to fork here...
As I've said
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
Something like PCH support is a native build feature that CMake should
support. As such, it should be done in C++, and built into CMake. Some
work has been done to support this. The hard stuff for CMake should
be done in C++. That is the implementation language of
Filipe Sousa escreveu:
For those who love lua and want a build system there is premake
http://industriousone.com/premake
Look how what's on the main page (premake.sf.net):
After several years of maintaining backward compatibility Or Else, I've
decided it is time to make a break. And if I'm
21 matches
Mail list logo
