Hi Aaron, The biggest difference right now is that the Java and Python bindings are not built whatsoever with the CMake build system. We also do not have an install target, so the CMake output is kind of stuck in “developer mode” and it won’t generate an installable package.
I probably would not yet recommend the CMake build system for production use. As far as what features are missing, I’m not aware of a concise list, but agree this is needed. Perhaps Joseph knows of one. If one does not exist at all, perhaps it’s time we audit the issues and do a comparison of the two build systems as they stand now to generate this list. Cheers, Andy From: Wood, Aaron<mailto:aaron.w...@verizon.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:00 PM To: dev<mailto:dev@mesos.apache.org> Subject: The state of cmake Hi all, I'm curious as to what the current state of came is on Linux. I noticed that some features that are present in the autotools build are not yet in cmake. Also, the output from a successful cmake build looks a bit different as far as the number of libraries that are produced and the number of symlinks created. While the output of a cmake build does seem to work fine on Linux, is there anything to be aware of that would cause issues for a production release? Is there a list of features somewhere that are in autotools but not yet in cmake? Does anyone think it is an exceptionally bad idea to use the current cmake system to produce binaries for production use? Thanks! -Aaron
