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

Re: CMake!

Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 15:56 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Oct 10, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Callum Lerwick wrote:

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 11:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
If the state of the art has advanced and there's a tool that can
replace libtool so a developer can say "I want a shared library" and the
tool builds it on all platforms then we could look into getting
upstreams to switch but simply getting rid of libtool in favour of
handcoding Makefiles to build shared libraries is a step in the wrong
CMake! Catch the wave!

Um, no. That's not what he asked for.

If you want upstream to stop using libtool altogether, find a suitable replacement and convince the Automake developers to use it instead.

Why the h8? He was speaking in the context of "the state of the art" and
in my oh-so-humble opinion CMake is it.

No, he was speaking in terms of something that could replace libtool upstream in (presumably some relatively high percentage of) 300 packages. And CMake is so, *so* not it. I don't know if anything is "it". But the notion that Fedora is going to get ~300 upstream projects to make wholesale changes to their build systems is profoundly detached from reality.

The whole of the Autotools stack
is very much... not.

Maybe. But a tool that is less extensible than them is likely to be perceived as a step in the wrong direction by a fair number of build system maintainers.

Last I checked I was just some random guy on the
internet who has sadly not been granted the power to force anyone to do

You have the power to affect the signal-to-noise ratio. Please use it wisely.

Braden McDaniel                      e-mail: <braden endoframe com>
<http://endoframe.com>               Jabber: <braden jabber org>

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