On Wednesday 03 December 2008 02:21:10 am Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 01:36 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 01:31:20 am Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > To me, cmake is > > > * not easier to learn, just different > > > > Learning a new thing is always different. He's not telling you it's > > easier for *you* to learn something new than something *you* already > > know, but that it's easier for someone unfamiliar with autotools nor > > CMake to learn CMake than autotools. > > I would agree to "it's very simple to get into cmake for trivial cases". > > For slightly non trivial cases, the autotools and cmake are more or less > on par wrt. difficulties. > > For complex cases, the flexibility the autotools provide pay off very > soon. On the downside, it's very easy to shoot yourselves into the foot > with them. > > > > * non-portable/inflexible. > > > > "FUD! FUD!" > > Absolutely not: Try to bring cmake to a new OS and you'll experience the > difference. What "new OS" has come out in the past 5 years or so that CMake doesn't already support? > > > * a crack ridden design (using a central database), reinvention of > > > imake, comprising it's design flaws. > > > > Reinvention of build-system-tools-in-general. Like a new version of > > autotools (they don't pretend to be backwards compatible). > > The autotools do not apply a central data base, they keep > "configuration" and "installation" as separate jobs. cmake lumps them > together. > > It's a different approach. Saves resources on koji, if nothing less. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
