From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 16:08:03
"Douglas Gregor" <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On May 11, 2007, at 12:53 AM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>> Then we do the Windows port, and a few minor improvements to the
>>> to find dependencies and the whole shebang is building cross-platform
>>> Visual Studio. Then we try out KDevelop, and a simple `cmake -G
>>> provides us with project files with zero additional effort. We
>>> now have
>> I did not get it from above statement
>> Did Cmake build your project or just created "project file"?
> *Sigh*. This is basic CMake knowledge, and it's been said at least 10
> times in this thread. CMake is a makefile generator. It generates
> makefiles/project files/solutions/whatever for your native build
Well, then I don't believe it's acceptable in this form. With more than
dozen of different configurations to support I don't really looking
favourable on learning all the native build tools.
> Once you've configured CMake for a particular compiler/platform,
> you'll rarely need to directly run it again. Just run your normal
> build tool ("make", or "nmake", or hit F7, or whatever) and your
> project will build. If what's been said about the CMake model does
> not make sense to you, please go download it and try building a small
> project with it; you'll get much better insight than we can give you
> through e-mail.
Though I do understand why this design might be attractive, I don't think
it's what boost should be moving to.
>>> CMake documentation is confusing. CMake has been a moving
>>> during the past couple years. As a result, there seems to be a
>>> lot of
>>> conflicting documentation floating around.
>> Hmm. We REALLY don't want to get into another "Build system as moving
>> target" situation. Again.
> The CMake developers have put a lot of effort into maintaining
> backward compatibility. So, while the "best way" do to a particular
> thing changes as CMake evolves, the "old way" still continues to
> work. Remember, the opposite of a moving target is a stagnant target.
> We want the ongoing maintenance and improvements that CMake brings.
Good. Don't forget to let them know ;).
IMO We should deal with this as we do with any other submission. Someone
needs to bring it up and we should review it and make a decision.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk