Hi I made so comments in the Talk page on Build Tools repeated here for perhaps broader comment:
I dont think the description here really represents the situation. Both Autotools and Cmake are build configuration utilities not tool chains as such. Would it not be better to describe the toolchains as: Autotools->make; #must be used for the documentation builds- used for program builds <v 2.6; Cmake->make; # now used for program and API documentation (V3.2 forward); Cmake->ninja; # alternative program build (API documentation??) (V3.2 forward); or even better if we consider the installation as a separate step from the build itself Autotools->make->make; #must be used for the documentation builds- used for program builds <v 2.6; Cmake->make->make; # now used for program and API documentation (V3.2 forward); Cmake->ninja->Make; # alternative program build (API documentation??) (V3.2 forward); The other parts of the tool chain here is the compiler system called by the above to compile and libtool to construct the libraries and possibly the linker. Should they not be also mentioned? David Cousens ----- David Cousens -- Sent from: http://gnucash.1415818.n4.nabble.com/GnuCash-Dev-f1435356.html _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
