CMake (Re: GNU make version)
matm at gmx.fr
Wed Mar 7 15:25:16 PST 2012
So I can't let my mailbox for the day without you stiffing it with mails
I will answer -almpost- all mails because I liked the discussions and some
need my right of reply.
Le Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:03:16 +0100, Michael Stahl <mstahl at redhat.com> a
> On 07/03/12 12:57, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 of March 2012, David Tardon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:28:05AM +0100, Mat M wrote:
>>>> Could someone point to archive on choosing gnumake ?
>>>> I am surprised cmake was not elected, since the C means
>>>> cross-platform, and that is one basic of LO.
> indeed, and AFAIK most of the platforms are supported by CMake by way of
> the (GNU) make backend. what was your point again? oh, GNU stands for
> GNU's not UNIX, but we actually found that GNU make also works on UNIX
> as well :)
Funny, my first insight was more about Microsoft OSes...
>>> Sigh, life would not be complete without enthusiasts telling us we
>>> should switch to cmake (or Qt) every few months. So, please, go read
>>> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_System_Analysis for the
>>> basics and
>>> for more questions and answers.
Thank you for providing the links I asked for. It seems OOo still a
reference to understand what's up now.
My second sentence was not to troll and/or rant (So you should not sigh
;)). I just wanted to expose my gut feelings about Cmake, and also had the
"having more Windows devs" rant in mind; I didn't talked about:
- Cmake roughly seems more active than gnu make. Not that it is a pledge
of quality, but fixing might be easier.
- Cmake also allows to build under Visual Studio
(Don't feel obliged to answer ;))
I will dive into links to understand.
>> That comparison appears to be seriously biased towards gbuild
>> (referred to
>> as 'GNU Make' in the document).
>> I'm not build system expert, but judging from my CMake experience in
>> KDE, the
>> information and conclusions for CMake are either outdated or just plain
>> (given the document dating to the time when KDE SC 4.4 had been
>> thus CMake having been used for more than 2 years by that time, I
>> assume it's
>> the the latter). In particular:
> most of the people doing the comparison weren't build system experts
> either, they just had a list of requirements that the current
> dmake/build.pl system could not fulfill. then they sought input from
> build system experts on the tools at ooo mailing list, and the CMake
> maintainer actually showed up there to discuss things.
So I have now a fresh view of what happened 2 years ago :)
Le Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:28:09 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bjoern.michaelsen at canonical.com> a écrit:
> Lets just finish this migration and kill of dmake and build.pl instead.
I totally agree
Best regards to you all enthusiasts
More information about the LibreOffice