|
Notes |
|
|
(0033721)
|
|
Eric NOULARD
|
|
2013-08-16 02:03
|
|
Providing linux binary is certainly convenient but I currently don't know
any linux distribution which does not ship CMake in its standard repository
so that installing appropriate binary version of CMake on Linux boils down to running the package manager (rpm, apt, aptitude, zypper, yum, etc...).
Now if you are not pleased with the CMake version you get on your linux distro then may be you can build your own from source which is fairly easy once you have a preceding version of CMake installed.
The following script should make the tasks fairly easy:
https://github.com/TheErk/CMake-tutorial/blob/master/examples/CMake-autobuild-v2.cmake [^]
All that said I agree with the fact that for completeness, providing amd64 binary for Linux could be done. |
|
|
|
(0033722)
|
|
Ma Xiaojun
|
|
2013-08-16 02:28
|
|
I'm sorry, I don't like the your "attitude" except the last sentence.
> so that installing appropriate binary version of CMake on Linux boils down to running the package manager (rpm, apt, aptitude, zypper, yum, etc...).
CentOS/SL 5/6 offers 2.6.4 while Ubuntu 12.04 LTS offers 2.8.7, that's all major, freely available, yet long term support distributions I'm aware of.
I don't think "random, older, probably patched version shipped by Linux distributions" is "appropriate".
See also: http://www.tmrepository.com/trademarks/youdontneedthelastversion/ [^]
Yes, you can argue build is "easy". Yes, I've done it on a CentOS 5 x86-64 box some time also.
Then, why don't you just throw out source code for certain architecture of proprietary Unix also? Any reason Linux doesn't deserve complete binary support from upstream?
And Yes, you are not doing Win64, but 32bit programs are certainly much less a problem on Windows 64bit. |
|
|
|
(0033724)
|
|
Eric NOULARD
|
|
2013-08-16 04:22
|
|
> I'm sorry, I don't like the your "attitude" except the last sentence.
I am really sorry if my wording did offense you.
Be sure, that was not my goal in any ways.
I think CentOS 6 was released in 2011-07-10 and CMake 2.6.4 was in 2009-04-28
which is more than 2 year behind. I know CentOS follows RHEL and
I know CentOS and RHEL tends to be "conservative" but they could have shipped
2.8.1.
Now concerning:
> Then, why don't you just throw out source code for certain architecture of proprietary Unix also ?
I guess this is for historical reason.
Now I need to be clear:
I'm not a Kitware employee but a bare CMake developer volunteer.
So my word are mine and should be taken as **my** opinion,
moreover I'm not doing the CMake release, Kitware people are.
I'm simply trying to help when I think I can, obviously I was wrong.
Again if I did offense, I apologize.
Concerning:
> Any reason Linux doesn't deserve complete binary support from upstream?
may be this thread can shed some light on that:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2012-May/050302.html [^] |
|
|
|
(0033894)
|
|
Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin
|
|
2013-09-25 17:39
|
|
|
|
|
(0042350)
|
|
Kitware Robot
|
|
2016-06-10 14:29
|
|
Resolving issue as `moved`.
This issue tracker is no longer used. Further discussion of this issue may take place in the current CMake Issues page linked in the banner at the top of this page. |
|