<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Chiheng Xu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chiheng.xu@gmail.com">chiheng.xu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:11 AM, <"\"Roman Wüger\"<br>
<<a href="mailto:norulez@me.com">norulez@me.com</a>>"@<a href="http://mac.com" target="_blank">mac.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> CMake is a Makefile-Generator an nothing else<br>
><br>
> Why would you write the Makefiles by yourself?<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Perhaps some people don't like the time consuming invocation of CMake.<br>
<br>
Maybe CMake can generate relocatable Makefiles only containing<br>
relative paths for several major platforms, and developers "cache"<br>
the generated relocatable Makefiles in version control systems. Then<br>
builders don't need to invoke CMake.<br></blockquote></div><br>That's technically possible, but I feel sure it would introduce far more problems than it would solve.<br><br>It would also rather spectacularly miss the point of CMake. You could equally well say "Maybe gcc could generate assembly code for several major platforms, and then you could store the generated assembly files in version control..."<br>
<br>Ceej<br>aka Chris Hillery<br>