[cmake-developers] VS10-12 generators deserve much more love

[Dan Cristiu]

I am not here to build merit. When myself and others start using find &
replace in the files generated by CMake, that should raise some concerns.
For people who have sent me private e-mails, I don't understand why you
don't express your frustrations on the mailing list. Apparently people here
believe everything is nice and dandy.

What I wrote in the previous e-mails weren't attempts to influence the
community or your design plans. Reason why I wrote such a big e-mail was to
make my intentions to contribute known and get some feedback and guidance.

Currently CMake offers a generator selection plus a completely separate and
hidden toolset setting. This is not natural for Visual Studio. If we want
to be even more specific, a VS solution can have a mixture of platforms and
toolsets, all defined per project, and they're very tightly coupled. A set
of hard-coded platforms, copied from generator to generator, will not cut
it for me I'm sorry. If the community and I have different minimum levels
of acceptance when it comes to maintenance and flexibility, then I can live
with a modified version of CMake in my own repository. Don't think anyone
though would be happy with having a separate CMake that works better for
Visual Studio.

Dan



On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Stephen Kelly <steveire at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dan Cristiu wrote:
>
> > Wanted to add a simple change to the VS11 generator to support
> non-default
> > toolsets,  but after taking another look through the code for the VS10
> > generator and above, I decided I wasn't happy with the result. It shows
> > those files have been the result of years of patches, with much of the
> > code just copied and pasted.
>
> I'm not interested in Visual Studio personally, but from reading the
> mailing
> list and bug updates, where there is design discussion about those
> generators, I think you have the wrong impression there.
>
> As you are new here, I guess you have not been aware of those design
> discussions.
>
> The suggestion to put everything in the generator name is the exact
> opposite
> direction to where the cmake design is going. You're not likely to have
> success turning that around just by suggesting it, and without being
> involved in (or even aware of) previous discussions.
>
> Being new, you need to build merit in order to participate in a
> meritocracy.
> I recommend reading/searching the mailing list archives or bug tracker
> before making suggestions or conclusions about the code or design.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve.
>
>
> --
>
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/attachments/20140217/6ff4e685/attachment-0002.html>