[CMake] packaging technologies
Brandon Van Every
bvanevery at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 15:49:32 EST 2007
On Dec 17, 2007 1:22 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño <ggarra at advancedsl.com.ar> wrote:
>
> Additional components like cpack or ctest are a plus, but they are not
> a major reason for sticking with cmake.
They aren't *yet*. They certainly could be in the future.
I lost the Chicken Scheme project to a bunch of Linux Autoconf
packagers. Ease of Linux packaging was perceived as more important
than MSVC support and the complications of CMake. Where
"complications" means "having to lift a finger to learn how CMake
works." The point is, packaging technologies introduced a choice, a
fork in the road for people to take. Since the Chicken Scheme
community is almost entirely a bunch of Unix-heads, they chose to
stick with Unix-oriented stuff. To the point of jettisoning all
"complicated" build systems and going back to hand-rolled Makefiles.
They completely dumped MSVC.
So, my perspective is that packaging technologies definitely matter.
I'm glad that CMake is working on that.
I also learned that it's not enough for project leads to be interested
in CMake. They have to be fully committed to cross-platform
development, and looking for the best solution to that problem.
Otherwise, you give them a great build system, and they'll balk the
minute they have to lift a finger to maintain it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
More information about the CMake
mailing list