[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Status of libtool 2.2.X?

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 04:03:22PM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> Cmake is not  covered by any standard (that I know about).
> What's your point? Is the autotools suite "covered by a standard"?

Not at all. But although cmake may not be installed on a POSIX system
all that is required by ./configure should.

I don't mean that cmake is more nor less portable. But vendor cmake may
not be more portable than POSIX tools.

> Autotools is theoretically portable to any POSIX system. In reality,  
> since most systems have bugs and idiosyncrasies, porting to a totally  
> new platform is going to involve some work.

> CMake is theoretically portable to any system with a C++ compiler.

You mean a specific cmake. But a vendor cmake may be different, with its
own set of idiosyncrasies. Looks like you are not compared the same set
of tools. GNU POSIX utilities don't have specific idiosyncrasies.

> Let's do some score-keeping:

I won't comment on that there are too many things that are not clearly
defined, and, honestly I don't caare. I don't favor cmake or the
autotools. My point is that you are comparing different things. 

On one hand you have an upstream cmake rebuild on different platforms. 
On the other thre are different vendor POSIX utilities that may be
rebuilt or in binary form that may not share the same source (and you 
may not even have the source).

A fair comparison would be a comparison between, say, GNU POSIX
utilities and standard cmake.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]