Hi Kevin
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 05:04:33PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > One advantage of CMake you didn't list is how it can do builds to a
> > sub-directory of the source tree. I found this helpful when building a
> > standard version of Blender and an experimental version with some added
Hi Malix
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:24:37AM +0200, Malix wrote:
> After my first post Alexandre ask to post a patch. From now I will have 2
> weeks of vacation. So I will try to make it happen. As project kde did I
> will use am2cmake ruby script for automatic translation and the fix things
> by h
After my first post Alexandre ask to post a patch. From now I will have 2
weeks of vacation. So I will try to make it happen. As project kde did I
will use am2cmake ruby script for automatic translation and the fix things
by hand.
If someone else is interested let me know.
Massimo
Il giorno 07/ago/
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 13:42 -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote:
> On 12-08-06 04:56 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Now my page ( http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/autohell/ ) gives
> > many
> > valid reasons why CMake is superior and GNU Autotools
> > is inferior, and as a result concludes it is valid
On 12-08-06 04:56 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Now my page ( http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/anti/autohell/ ) gives many
valid reasons why CMake is superior and GNU Autotools
is inferior, and as a result concludes it is valid to nickname Autotools
"Autohell"
as a derogatory name, just based on t
STOOP ITT
And don't you dare say "But he started it!".
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote:
> On 08/05/2012 10:56 PM, gg wrote:
> > ... elision by patrick ...
> >
> >
> > Patrick, you refer to a pseudo encyclopaedia but fail to read the very
> > first line:
> >
> >
On 08/05/2012 10:56 PM, gg wrote:
> ... elision by patrick ...
>
>
> Patrick, you refer to a pseudo encyclopaedia but fail to read the very
> first line:
>
> >> An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man") short for argumentum ad
> hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out
>
> Von: Alexandre Prokoudine
> I'm glad that you're having tons of fun discussing deep philosophical
> standpoints, but for the mere mortals... TL;DR: should I be adding "We
> like autotools and think you should apologize for calling them
> autohell" to our new FAQ?
Add
"Occasionally, we get req
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Well, I have looked in that article under abusive and I still don't see
> how my page constitutes of an ad-hominem attack just by the fact it calls
> GNU Autotools "Autohell".
I'm glad that you're having tons of fun discussing deep philosophic
Hi Patrick,
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:30:29 -0700
Patrick Horgan wrote:
> On 08/04/2012 02:43 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > ...elision by patrick...
> > Well, calling GNU Autotools "Autohell" is not an ad-hominem attack.
> > However, assuming that since I called it "Autohell" it is
On 08/06/12 05:30, Patrick Horgan wrote:
On 08/04/2012 02:43 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hi Patrick,
...elision by patrick...
Well, calling GNU Autotools "Autohell" is not an ad-hominem attack. However,
assuming that since I called it "Autohell" it is wrong (or "flamebait"), is.
See:
http://en.wiki
On 08/04/2012 02:43 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> ...elision by patrick...
> Well, calling GNU Autotools "Autohell" is not an ad-hominem attack. However,
> assuming that since I called it "Autohell" it is wrong (or "flamebait"), is.
> See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Lol!
Hi Patrick,
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 22:23:27 -0700
Patrick Horgan wrote:
> On 07/29/2012 05:17 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:44PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >>> Do we need to change to CMake? Nobody has given
> >>> reasons so far, just assumed that we'd like to swit
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:23:27 -0700
> From: phorg...@gmail.com
> To: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] What about switching from Gtk+ to Qt
>
> On 07/29/2012 05:17 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:44PM +0300, Shl
On 07/29/2012 05:17 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:44PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>>> Do we need to change to CMake? Nobody has given
>>> reasons so far, just assumed that we'd like to switch to CMake. It
>>> would substitute one hell for another.
>> Well, I have give
On Monday, July 30, 2012, 9:06:53, Malix wrote:
> Switching to new build system should not be linked to the fact that the
> former does not work, but to the best that the new works.
Except that looking at CMake documentation, it makes cross-compiling
GIMP much more complicated that it's at the mo
Switching to new build system should not be linked to the fact that the
former does not work, but to the best that the new works.
Qt is a great library. Yes is C++ but dosen't require rewriting GIMP but
only the user interface. But as already said I shot too high :-)
Il giorno 29/lug/2012 16:03, "
: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:55:48 +0300
> > From: shlo...@shlomifish.org
> > To: parth...@gmail.com
> > CC: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] What about switching from Gtk+ to Qt
> >
> > Hi Partha,
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:55:48 +0300
> From: shlo...@shlomifish.org
> To: parth...@gmail.com
> CC: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] What about switching from Gtk+ to Qt
>
> Hi Partha,
>
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0400
> Parth
On 12-07-29 06:21 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
CMake will be available in addition or instead of GNU Autotools (so I won't
work for naught).
My one expo
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:11:20 +0200
Malix wrote:
> I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames. Next step of
> the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3, why instead not switching
> away from gtk and go with Qt? And also leave autohell and switch to make?
>
> You can think t
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 14:57:17, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Just chipping in with some actual information: cmake does support
> cross-compiling quite well. See
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling.
This looks very complicated compared to ./configure
--host=x86_64-w64-mingw32 that
Autotools may be unpleasant to learn, but once it works, it works, and it
works well for GIMP. If you were starting a new project then you might have
grounds to think about picking an easier build tool, but why throw away all
the work already put into GIMP's use of autotools because autotools is to
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Partha Bagchi wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>>>
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so u
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Partha Bagchi wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you meant
GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
>> CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you
>> meant
>> GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate project files for
>> other IDEs a
On Sunday, July 29, 2012, 13:55:48, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> CMake can generate GNU make-compatible makefiles just fine, so unless you
> meant
> GNU Automake, that's not the issue. CMake can also generate project files for
> other IDEs and support some other build-systems, all from the same sources,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 02:51:44PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Do we need to change to CMake? Nobody has given
> > reasons so far, just assumed that we'd like to switch to CMake. It
> > would substitute one hell for another.
>
> Well, I have given many reasons here:
>
> http://www.shlomifish.
Hi Mukund,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:39:19 +0530
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Hi Shlomi
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
> > CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's develop
Hi Partha,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:22:35 -0400
Partha Bagchi wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > Hi Shlomi
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> >> In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
> >> CM
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Hi Shlomi
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>> In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
>> CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
>> CMake
Hi Shlomi
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to
> CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that
> CMake will be available in addition or instead of GNU Autotools (so I wo
Hi all,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:44:21 +0400
Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Malix wrote:
>
> > I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames.
>
> But you do it anyway?
>
> > Next step of the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3
>
> It starte
On 07/29/12 02:11, Malix wrote:
I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames. Next step
of the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3, why instead not
switching away from gtk and go with Qt? And also leave autohell and
switch to make?
You can think that I'm just kidding but c
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Malix wrote:
> I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames.
But you do it anyway?
> Next step of the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3
It started over a year ago, it's just lower priority right now.
> why instead not switching away fro
Ops my phone wrongly change this: "And also leave autohell and switch to
cmake"
Il giorno 29/lug/2012 02:11, "Malix" ha scritto:
> I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames. Next step of
> the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3, why instead not switching
> away from gtk
I already know that this post will generate a lot of flames. Next step of
the project is the porting of the code to Gtk 3, why instead not switching
away from gtk and go with Qt? And also leave autohell and switch to make?
You can think that I'm just kidding but consider those two blog post
http:
37 matches
Mail list logo
