Build system (was Re: Future of KDE Development)

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 08:32, Tobias Koenig wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 11:47:18PM +0500, Stanislav Karchebny wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 February 2005 21:11, mETz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > I don't know anything about python and looking at scons doesn't create
> > > the wish to change that.
> >
> > I second that. After looking at some scons scripts I didn't find them too
> > convincing; especially for developer concentrated on getting his code
> > delivered, not fighting with buildsystem
>
> That's near to the border of FUD IMHO ;)
>
> The scons example posted earlier ist already quite complex and most of
> the stuff putted in there could be done one level higher, so that a
> simple
>
>  KApplication( 'foobar', ['main.cpp','mainwindow.cpp','mywidget.cpp'] )

One thing I don't like here is that I have to use python syntax. 

With cmake this *could* look like:

KDE_ADD_APP(foobar main.cpp mainwindow.cpp mywidget.cpp)

...
> And the main reason for using this build system is IMHO, that the guy
> who will have to maintain it (let's call him coolo), knows python quite
> well :)

I think this seems to be a very true point.

As for forking cmake into "kmake": this would be 1.) a really bad idea and 2.) 
completely unnecessary, because:
-most if not all things we need can be done without changing cmake itself, but 
with macros and stuff
-if kde needs some features in cmake, the cmake guys will be happy to help, at 
least that's my impression. They really want cmake to be the tool of choice 
for everybody.

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