CMake (Re: GNU make version)

[Mat M]

Good evening!

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  
écrit:

> 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:
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>> http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/New-build-system-td2928559.html
>>> 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 information and conclusions for CMake are either outdated or just plain  
>> wrong
>> (given the document dating to the time when KDE SC 4.4 had been  
>> released,
>> 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 :)
TY

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

Mat M