On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Mukund Sivaraman <muks@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Shlomi > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:21:03PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: >> In any case, I would be willing to work on porting GIMP's build system to >> CMake, as long as there is a general agreement from GIMP's developers that >> CMake will be available in addition or instead of GNU Autotools (so I won't >> work for naught). > > Automake has served GIMP well so far. We also have several people who > know automake well enough to help other developers if they are unable > to find their way. Do we need to change to CMake? Nobody has given > reasons so far, just assumed that we'd like to switch to CMake. It > would substitute one hell for another. > > Same applies for Qt. These suggestions keep coming up again and again. > GIMP should be rewritten in C++, GIMP should use some other new thing, > etc. Many times I look at how GIMP does something (in its tree) as an > example of how to do something nearly perfectly. > > Mukund > _______________________________________________ > gimp-developer-list mailing list > gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list I totally agree with Mukund. I sincerely hope that we continue with using GNU make which works extremely well as far as I am concerned. Of course, if GIMP is re-written in qbasic that would be great. :) :) Maybe APL? _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
