By the way, it works like a charm on my imac. I am using the version included in port (www.darwinports.com).
-Raphael. Atle Samuelsen wrote: > Hi Guys, > > my 0.0001 canadian dollers are saying that the times I've used different > autoconf like tools it always ends up in a big destress when SOMETHING > is wrong in some weird file some weird place.. and due to bug in this > and that version of autoconf it does'nt compile.. > > My experiance with cmake is alot bether. So I agree on useing Cmake :) > > - Atle > > * Seamus Huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081015 11:38]: > >> Hi all, >> >> Personally I don't like auto* tools either. The tool set is difficult >> to understand and users/developers just don't know what to run at what >> stage (libtool, aclocal, automake, autoconf, configure, autoreconf, >> autoheader etc...). Honestly I tried to learn and use the tool set at >> some point, but I just gave up after a few failed attempts. I just >> couldn't understand the tool chain properly. >> >> As for alternatives, there are quite a number of choices out there. >> While CMake seems to be gaining some share, bakefile is another choice >> (http://www.bakefile.org/index.html). I haven't used it before, so >> really not sure whether it's good in practice or not. Anyway, just >> throwing out the name as an option. >> >> >> >> Peter Lemenkov wrote: >> >>> Hello All! >>> >>> 2008/10/15 Stefan Sayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> in the past we have spent way too much time maintaining the Makefiles, >>>> and this also in a quite improper way. So I started adding cmake [1] >>>> lists to have proper Makefiles (or other build system files) generated >>>> by cmake. For now it is only the core and wav.so, but its a start... >>>> >>>> >>> Good news. The former (and present) buildsystem is hard-to-maintain >>> (at least I think so) and hard-to-understand one. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Having played around with autoconf&automake, I'd say it is for my taste >>>> just too complex to use it properly, and also I personally do not see >>>> much advantage in libtool, but if anyone is more experienced with that >>>> and likes to contribute something I would be happy as well. BTW if you >>>> haven't read [2] its imo a good laugh... >>>> >>>> Stefan >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.cmake.org/ >>>> [2] http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/889/ >>>> >>>> >>> Ther is also a flamewar about buildsystems in Fedora-Devel maillist >>> right now. I dig it a little and found another one pretty interesting >>> message about autotools: >>> >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/94116/focus=94451 >>> >>> Just FYI. >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Semsdev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev >> > _______________________________________________ > Semsdev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev > _______________________________________________ Semsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev
