On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Mark Slee <ms...@facebook.com> wrote:
> I'm with David on this one. Autoconf/automake may not be the most elegant > thinks around, but the download/configure/make process is such a common > standard for end users. > I agree this is a standard, but not much things would change. It would become download/cmake/make. > > What are the main benefits you think cmake would provide? It would remove the hard part of managing autohell (has stated in KDE when it was used). More compilers and build system would be supported ( xcode on macs , visual studio on windows, eclipse CDT, borland make ) It eases crossplatform builds. the biggest point is the manageability Even boost uses cmake. (as seen on wikipedia) > > For Windows I don't think it is unreasonable for someone who works on that > side of the fence to maintain a separate build process that makes things > easier on Windows users. I wouldn't want this to come at the cost of the > simplicity and implicit-standards-compliance of the *nix setup. > The same build process is used on windows with cmake. > > Re: SCons, I have personally had some painful experiences working with it, > and have heard similar stories of sadness from many others. As elegant as it > can be for small, simple projects, I'm not confident that SCons is up to the > task of a project as complicated and spanning as many targets as Thrift > does. I agree with you on scons > this is a interesting article on why kde switched. http://lwn.net/Articles/188693/ <http://lwn.net/Articles/188693/>what i suggest is that i try to compile thrift with cmake and make it work with it. Then i send you my branch and you see if it fits -- Pierre-Alexandre St-Jean
