On 17/06/2019 08.44, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > Also, are you trying to say that cmake's configuration system is > more user friendly than Qt's configure
Yes. Very much so. > (or for, that matter, autotool's configure or similar things in sane > build systems)? Yes. Very much so. > All of the latter provide a set of documented options with > human-oriented names, CMake's options are also documented. (Or, at least, they should be. If they aren't, that's the fault of the project author(s), though, not CMake. Similarly, I'm sure you can neglect to document autotools options.) The difference is that autotools just spits out a great block of text at me. With ccmake / cmake-gui, I can *interactively* putter around the available options. And I don't have to copy/paste to turn things on, or worry if I need to remember to run configure with the same arguments every time, or... > [...] which exposes internal variable names as they are. Again, poor naming is not CMake's fault. I'm sure you can give autotools config options very poor names also. Having recently tried to build Qt myself for the first time, I very, very much miss having something like ccmake... -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
