cmake hype?

David Faure faure at
Fri Feb 3 13:04:27 GMT 2006

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, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (, and KOffice (

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list