David Philippi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am Donnerstag 24 Januar 2008 schrieb Nils Kneuper:
> > I think that is currently one of the main benefits of cmake, it is
> > crossplatform and supports the basic and known build systems of each.
>
> It has its downsides as well...
>
> http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/articles/2008/01/06/im-not-an-happy-maintainer-working-with-cmake
From the article:
CMake seems to have inherited the worst of almost every build system
that was developed in the last few years. From Qt’s qmake it took the
absurdity of release/debug builds with different C[XX]FLAGS, from
Imake it took the complicated syntax (I still wonder how can someone
say that autoconf's syntax is more complicated than CMake's!), from
scons it took the fact that no two projects seems to handle things in
the same way, with the result that having an actually semi-automated
handling of configuration like we can do with autotools is
impossible. I don't know from where they took the fact that they
broke already a couple of time the syntax so that recent projects need
a new version of cmake, and older projects need an old version of
cmake. I also don’t know who the hell thought that bundling a copy of
zlib, one of xmlrpc (beside, what the hell do they have to do with xml
RPC?!), one of expat, one of libtar and one of curl was a good idea.
[...]
Tell me again, beside working on Windows and having coloured output,
what should cmake do better than autoconf?
I can't say I'm hugely surprised. I thought I detected a smell of
clumsy, brittle design rising from the cmake documentation. This
just confirms my suspicions that I didn't want anything to do with it.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
