Build system (was Re: Future of KDE Development)

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Monday 14 February 2005 19:56, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2005 19:33, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > IMO this is an advantage. Everybody knows makefiles, so everybody will
> > feel kind of comfortable. You can still enter make on the command line.
>
> Everybody knows makefiles? Tss, 

Wouldn't be too bad if you could be serious at least once ;-)

> then how come Makefile.ams are most broken
> if people are writing own rules?

E.g. because you have to understand how the rule will be transferred from the 
Makefile.am through the Makefile.in to the final Makefile ?
Anyway, the basic principles are understood and running make feels familiar.

> If you want an argument against cmake: 

From the tone of this question it seems we're set on scons: more people here 
(including you, the current build system maintainer) are more willing to use 
python than another solution.

> it doesn't provide a full powered
> programming language and custom macro languages is what we have now and
> no-one understands them.

Difference: all cmake is documented on *one* easy understandable man page.
(this is the one feature why I switched to cmake, it is really easy to learn)
I'm not opposed to using scons, I just know that I made very good experiences 
with cmake, I consider cmake very good documented, powerful and very easy to 
use.

Bye
Alex
-- 
Work: alexander.neundorf at jenoptik.com - http://www.jenoptik-los.de
Home: neundorf at kde.org                - http://www.kde.org
      alex at neundorf.net               - http://www.neundorf.net