cmake hype?

[David Faure]

On Friday 03 February 2006 13:17, George Staikos wrote:
> On Friday 03 February 2006 07:03, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Gregory Hayes wrote:
> > >I can agree with that sentiment ;) Three different build systems is just
> > >asking for trouble down the line. Regardless of which build system is
> > >chosen, there needs to be a single "standard" methodology for building.
> > > Once this is resolved, we need to align our quality team documentation
> > > so we are all working off the same page.
> >
> > We will have only one official buildsystem for KDE4.
> >
> > In Málaga, we had decided for Scons. But cmake is progressing fast too. If
> > cmake delivers and Scons doesn't, we'll use that.
> 
>   I could make a .sh faster than CMake finishes too, but it will still be the 
> worse choice.

Yes because it would be all-in-one file instead of a modular and maintainable solution.
But you seem to imply that cmake is not a modular and maintainable solution, however as far as I can see, it is.
So either you're on a purely rethoric level, or you have a wrong image of cmake.

"delivers" means "suits all our needs", not just "can compile kdelibs right now".

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).