[CMake] What about...

[Thomas Zander]

On Friday 26 May 2006 21:00, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > The problem with the use-(g)make decision is that you are stuck with
> > using unintuitive variable names to alter the build process.
> >  
> Then dump it and develop with VC++.  Or some other compiler with a
> better (or just different ;-) *NATIVE* build system.  I mean really, if
> you don't like gmake, how is that CMake's problem?

You have to understand where I come from; I'm a core developer of KWord; 
an application that doesn't even run on Windows (due to legal as well as 
technical reasons).
I don't even have a Windows installation. (Haven't use the system in 
years, actually).

> I think what you're 
> really saying is you like Ant and you want things to be like you
> already know.

Not ant; I just proposed one feature from it; the others came from 
unsermake.  A python based tool KDE used before. But it still had to much 
auto*-isms so we removed that.

But, to directly answer your assertion; the most human feeling of me 
feeling lost when there is something new to learn is not the reason for 
my emails here. I honestly find it counter productive of you to go for 
that excuse.  Its soo easy.

The suggestions I made here are an attempt to make cmake (which I _am_ 
using daily) get better. To make it the best by learning from all the 
build systems I have had to use over the years.

CMake is not perfect, its still growing and I wish to help you guys by 
providing a list of things I would really appreciate to see. With that 
cleared up; you may want to go back to my initial mail in this thread and 
look at it anew :-)

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20060528/1d2a3af3/attachment.pgp