[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: CMake!



Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 01:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Oh, and I think that cmake is a big trainwreck.
> I share this view. Cmake is imake in new clothes and suffers from the
> same design flaws as imake did.

Like for example?

The complaints I've read about imake is that it has tables for what systems 
have what properties and that you had to maintain those. Assuming that's true 
(I haven't actually used imake), that's very different from how CMake works. 
CMake can do configure checks just like autoconf, the difference is that it 
won't waste time on tests you didn't ask for (and thus won't use the results of 
anyway), like the existence of ubiquitous ISO C90 headers like <string.h> or 
ubiquitous ISO C90 functions like memcpy and memset.

> It's only the limited set of requirements being used by the limited set of
> use cases it's proponents apply which lets them think "cmake is better".

CMake is used by all of KDE 4, and several other projects have switched to 
CMake following that example (or in some cases, because the KDE Window$ porters 
did the port for them), and I'm not aware of anyone having switched back.

        Kevin Kofler


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]