The Technical Working Group's mission statement

[Matt Rogers]

On Tuesday 14 March 2006 05:46, R.F. Pels wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 March 2006 11.57, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> >> Does anyone have STRONG objections? I don't want to know if you don't
> >> like the syntax, or if you think buildsystem Foo would suit us better.
> >> The choice has been made and it's cmake. I want to know if people object
> >> the *procedure*.
> >
> > Please make the procedure much more transparent. I have no idea how you
> > reached the decision, who has taken it, what were the reasons, and what
> > consequences it will have.
>
> I would be willing to accept cmake provided:
>
> 1) it supports distributed compilation in a reasonable way
> 2) it is supported by kdevelop in a reasonable way
> 3) the number of supported platforms stays the same
> 4) there is a relatively easy migration possibility from
>    the automake build system to cmake.
>
> where 1) and 2) are IMHO the critical factors in cmake adoption.

don't know about number 1, but number 2 probably requires new code which would 
need to be written and I don't know of anybody at this moment that has the 
time to do it. CMake does support creating KDevelop 3 projects, although 
native support would be better.

Thanks
--
Matt