[CMake] improve the CMake language?

[P. Fleury]

On 11/8/07, Bill Hoffman <bill.hoffman at kitware.com> wrote:
>
> Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:




> [...] Also, I am
> not sure having N languages for CMake would be the best approach.  So,
> you go to build a project, and hey they are using CMake, cool, I know
> how to run CMake, oh wait, that one is ruby CMake, I need to get the
> ruby CMake to build it.  Would Kitware have to distribute N binaries?
> One of the biggest complaints about CMake, is that it requires CMake to
> be installed in order to do the build.  What if it required N different
> binaries where N was decided on by the project doing the build.  I just
> don't think that would be in the best interest of the community.  At the
> end of the day CMake should be like make, it should be a binary utility
> that is available by default on every OS.  It is a single interface so
> that if you know how to use it in one place you can use it in another.


I totally agree with this point. The least I want is to have to
configure/build the build system before I get to the actual project. That,
from my POV, also applies to the 'language as a plugin to cmake' approach,
as one may not have the appropriate plugin to build project X, and has to
download/built it from svn etc. I feel this is way more pain in the long run
than being stuck with a particular programming language.



-Bill
>
>
> -Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> CMake mailing list
> CMake at cmake.org
> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20071108/a3be9a63/attachment.html