[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] Error building with cmake
From:       thorsten () staerk ! de
Date:       2006-04-13 18:06:19
Message-ID: 28817.84.169.82.75.1144951579.squirrel () mail ! staerk ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

> On Thursday 13 April 2006 16:33, thorsten@staerk.de wrote:
>> Again what I said in bulletpoints:
>> DISADVANTAGES of cmake compared to automake:
>> - KDE developing time lost for setting up build systems
> And just how to do you think the old buildsystem came to being?
> Magically, over night, without any developer spending time on it?
> No, buildsystem hacking *is* developing time, and the fact that Kulow
> did a lot of the work on the previous build system saved many KDE
> developers
> from having to understand the magic behind it. But the old system has
> shown
> its limits (autoconf not portable, libtool unflexible and slow, etc.), so
> it's
> time to move on.
>
>> - cmake is an obstacle to potential new developers
>> - funny build systems are negatively affected (e.g. cygwin)
>> - compile tutorials become obsolete
> Oh come on - this is all a transitional phase, things will stabilize with
> time.
> Developers are adapting, tutorials are upgraded, etc.
>
> Besides, did you every write configure checks with autoconf? If you did,
> surely you noticed that it was also an "obstacle to potential new
> developers", no?
> Writing portable sh syntax is certainly not everyone's strong point. At
> least
> all the cmake commands are fully documented, whereas with sh, everyone
> was applying the wrong principle "if it works for me, it must work for
> everyone
> else" - which is certainly not true when it comes to bash vs sh.
>
> I don't know what's the problem with cygwin, but on the kde-buildsystem
> mailing-list
> several people are compiling kde regularly on windows now - unlike before.
>
>> the cmake gurus fail to show the ADVANTAGES of cmake
> Overall compilation time of a module is much much faster than before,
> mainly due to not using libtool anymore - the linking operations are
> almost
> twice faster.
>
> Portability is an obvious advantage for KDE on the whole - but of course
> not for existing Linux/BSD-using developers.
>
> And the main advantage compared to e.g. unsermake: development of
> the build system itself is done by non-kde full-time developers.
>
> David.

David, always a pleasure to read your mails. You fully convinced me
exactly with the reasons above and I joined the cmake-wannabes-community
today. I plan to put your reasons into that kdecmakeintro topic.

Thanks a lot.

Thorsten

_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]