On Tuesday 02 January 2007 00:59, Andrew Church wrote: > While it does look like an interesting alternative, I'm not > particularly excited about a GUI-based configuration system [..] > From reading this, it seems to me that cmake is primarily intended for > use via GUI, and command-line use is considered deprecated. > I agree with you, i don't like a GUI-based configuration system either, but cmake is not GUI-based, you can see the GUI as a further option cmake (more precisely ccmake, but only if the curses library is supported) provides. I never used it anyway. The command-line is by no means deprecated.
> (even assuming any required Makefiles would be generated ahead of time for > distribution packages. > You mean the package-maintainer could generate the Makefiles? No. cmake is the equivalent of autotools configure script instead of configure; make; make install we do e.g. (out-of-source build) cmake -DWITH_FEATURE=1 srcdir/ ; make; make install > In any case, I > would be nervous about using a tool that rewrites user-edited files like > this; as complex as the autotools suite is, it does follow the standard > input-file-to-output-file process, so it's easy to track the effects of > changes. > CMakeCache.txt is a cache file generated by cmake. It is not exactly the configuration file. Normally it should not be necessary to edit this file. But if you edit things in there, your changes will not be altered be futher cmake runs. This could be useful if cmake can't find an installed library or you want to use a special version in a special directory. Also you could use command-line parameters instead, if you wish. As I said: we could use autotools and cmake in parallel, so we could test cmake without drawbacks. Greetings Thomas Wehrspann
