I am in favor of supporting cmake, especially if we can do it alongside the existing autotools. Yes, we need to do this down the stack, including of course common c++ and there has already been one person experimenting with commonc++ cmake. I also actually do want to use cmake in ucommon and sipwitch as well.
Werner Dittmann wrote: > All, > > during the last days I created files and functions to support > CMake based configuration setup. In a first step I did this > for the ZRTP extension because I know this best :-) . The > new CMake configuration cover the same functionality as > autoconf, but much simpler to handle. This includes > configuration, the full make targets and includes building > a RPM package . These files are already available in SVN. > > I started to do the same for the ccRTP stuff. In my sandbox > I have already a working setup that creates the ccRTP lib and > creates a source distribution. Building a RPM package is the > next step (quite easy), then adding the demo directory (also > fairly easy). > > I did this exercise because some (well, at least kdevelop4) > development tools do not support autoconf/automake anymore and > switched to CMake. > > Both toolsets can live in parallel to simplify migration. > > Question: would it be ok if I checkin the cmake stuff for ccRTP > also once I completed the above steps? Of course this is a first > working version only that should be enhanced over the time. > > Regards, > Werner > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccrtp-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ccrtp-devel
<<attachment: dyfet.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ Ccrtp-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/ccrtp-devel
