On Monday, 6 November 2006 15:18, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Monday 06 Nov 2006 10:44, Chris Cannam wrote: > > [...] building continues. > > Well, it built. > > I have to say I'm still only half keen. > > Pros:
[...] 6 positive points for CMake from Chris. > Cons: > > * Requires a tool users won't necessarily have. I've already commented this point. It is already available for many distros, it can be easily obtained otherwise, and I expect to become very popular, because is the tool needed to build the forthcoming KDE4. > * Generates a staggering amount of supporting cruft. > > I counted a total of 96 files generated by the configure and build > process (not counting directories or the usual object files). > > * No way to remove the supporting cruft (no "make distclean"). I've included a bash script in scripts/clean_cmake_files to do so (and you were discouraged to build inside the source tree, anyway :-). It is possible to add custom targets to the Makefiles, so I can add the "distclean" target if you insist to not use the out-of-sources approach. > The docs suggest that this doesn't matter because you should be > building to a separate build directory. I would accept that if the > default was to build to a separate build directory, but it isn't. This can be done, also. You can add a second argument to the ADD_SUBDIRECTORY() function, which would become the output directory. I would prefer to not make it a mandatory policy, though. > * Some of the output is so verbose and/or weird as to be offputting. > The stuff you get when you type "make" and there's no work to be > done, for example, is just excessive. I have enabled the verbose output by default: SET(CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE ON), because it is better to debug the build system, and anyway the compiler output and command lines are needed by Eclipse to build the error and warning lists, which I like a lot. This option can be disabled by default after the build system becomes more mature. > I would much rather have only a single makefile (or at most two, one in the > top-level directory and one in src/). 16 generated files is still a lot, > but it's much better than 96, and it would cut down on the verbiage as well > as there would be, and should be, no need to change directories. If the > makefile was too large and unwieldy with all the file names in it, it could > perhaps include lists of files from the individual directories. Or I'd > probably rather it wildcarded the list of source files itself. You will face two challenges: check 3rd party libs, allowing the user to specify some options, and fulfill some requirements as the ones requested by yourself: handle dependencies properly between sources dealt with in different Makefiles, and build things in the right order when invoked with -j3 Regards, Pedro ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
