LOL, CMake is the only one that is halfway decent, and easily universally available, and not perennially abandoned by its developer :) > From: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:15:08 -0700 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Openexr-devel] looking for a working 2.0.1 Windows build > > Do any of the people complaining about CMake have a suggestion for a better > cross-platform build system that (a) isn't worse on the things that CMake > does relatively well, and (b) isn't so rare or obscure that nobody will have > it on their system or be able to install it or that it's in danger of its > development team stopping or being unresponsive? > > > > On Jun 17, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Thorsten Kaufmann > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry this was meant for the list not Michel only :) > > > > From my experience i wholeheartedly agree. Maybe this mainly a windows > > problem too? But no matter what I tried to build using CMAKE ended up in a > > frustrating disaster heh > > > > Cheers, > > Thorsten > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: openexr-devel-bounces+thorsten.kaufmann=mackevision...@nongnu.org > > [mailto:openexr-devel-bounces+thorsten.kaufmann=mackevision...@nongnu.org] > > Im Auftrag von Michel Lerenard > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Juni 2014 09:31 > > An: [email protected] > > Betreff: Re: [Openexr-devel] looking for a working 2.0.1 Windows build > > > > On 06/17/2014 07:35 AM, Piotr Stanczyk wrote: > >> > >> I am hoping that CMake can serve our needs well. > > Somehow I disagree. > > > > I've been using and compiling free libraries using cmake for a while now, > > and I have to say that's the worst build system I've ever seen. Of all the > > libraries I've compiled, OpenEXR is the only one that I could build with a > > few tweaks only. For most of the others, it's easier and faster to create > > visual solutions from scratch than having Cmake correctly generating the > > projects. > > > > I'm quite sure that it would not be more difficult to maintain Visual > > Solution than updating the CMake config files (that's what I with other > > libraries), and far much easier for people to use them. For my point of > > view (user building third party libraries with it), Cmake seems so > > complicated, generates so many files and uses so many variables that it's > > hard to believe it's easy for library maintainers to update it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Openexr-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel > > Thorsten Kaufmann > > Production Pipeline Architect > > ____________________________________ > > > > Mackevision Medien Design GmbH > > Forststraße 7 > > D-70174 Stuttgart > > > > T T +49 711 93 30 48 606 > > F +49 711 93 30 48 90 > > M +49 151 19 55 55 02 > > > > [email protected] > > www.mackevision.de > > > > Geschäftsführer: Armin Pohl, Joachim Lincke, Karin Suttheimer > > HRB 243735 Amtsgericht Stuttgart > > _______________________________________________ > > Openexr-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel > > -- > Larry Gritz > [email protected] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openexr-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
_______________________________________________ Openexr-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
