📅 Original date posted:2011-07-02
🗒️ Summary of this message: Cmake is not better than autotools, it just has a different syntax and requires an additional dependency. Autotools is still the preferred choice.
📝 Original message:Cmake is just as bad as autotools, just with a different syntax and more "buzz" behind it right this second. I don't see any advantage to it over autotools unless you're not familiar with either and even then I wouldn't really call it an advantage. It's just different.
It also requires a dependency that isn't installed by default anywhere, as already mentioned, and is less known outside of some obscure qt/kde circles and so finding people who are familiar with it and are willing to maintain it is more difficult.
Autotools is the devil you know.
You'll probably throw out that mysql and compiz have switched to it, but really, those projects aren't something that should be emulated by anyone. Ever.
On Jul 2, 2011, at 11:50 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:29:04 AM John Smith wrote:
> > Why again did we choose for autotools as future build system instead of
> > cmake?
>
> I don't really care much either way, but cmake doesn't follow the standard
> build procedure (./configure && make && make install), though I imagine
> ./configure could be emulated with some script.
>
> It would change the sequence to
>
> cmake . && make && make install
>
> So a shell script named 'configure' that starts 'cmake .' is the most easy case :-) Probably it'd also need to pass through some command line args, for example --prefix.
>
> JS
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2_______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Douglas Huff
Douglas Huff [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xp…c6eq0
2023-06-07 02:01:33
in reply to nevent1q…g0nw
Author Public Key
npub1xpryrka5nmn2vq9uum4qfjcvkfdne95l3ug4sxhdkcnndu4uu6eqrc6eq0Published at
2023-06-07 02:01:33Event JSON
{
"id": "a8f95a8a33561081540d1d0406c995d82460fa7607d3b80140fb9cbc680602a6",
"pubkey": "304641dbb49ee6a600bce6ea04cb0cb25b3c969f8f11581aedb62736f2bce6b2",
"created_at": 1686103293,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c539c8254db861f3128bdc955ff0ae63580df052380433f714ba3e35210d5867",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f7f9463da3519eca59ccea9e1dc3216b0c10af7e02a78345bde96eccb0863d7b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-07-02\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Cmake is not better than autotools, it just has a different syntax and requires an additional dependency. Autotools is still the preferred choice.\n📝 Original message:Cmake is just as bad as autotools, just with a different syntax and more \"buzz\" behind it right this second. I don't see any advantage to it over autotools unless you're not familiar with either and even then I wouldn't really call it an advantage. It's just different.\n\nIt also requires a dependency that isn't installed by default anywhere, as already mentioned, and is less known outside of some obscure qt/kde circles and so finding people who are familiar with it and are willing to maintain it is more difficult. \n\nAutotools is the devil you know.\n\nYou'll probably throw out that mysql and compiz have switched to it, but really, those projects aren't something that should be emulated by anyone. Ever.\n\nOn Jul 2, 2011, at 11:50 AM, John Smith wrote:\n\n\u003e On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:29:04 AM John Smith wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Why again did we choose for autotools as future build system instead of\n\u003e \u003e cmake?\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't really care much either way, but cmake doesn't follow the standard\n\u003e build procedure (./configure \u0026\u0026 make \u0026\u0026 make install), though I imagine\n\u003e ./configure could be emulated with some script.\n\u003e \n\u003e It would change the sequence to\n\u003e \n\u003e cmake . \u0026\u0026 make \u0026\u0026 make install\n\u003e \n\u003e So a shell script named 'configure' that starts 'cmake .' is the most easy case :-) Probably it'd also need to pass through some command line args, for example --prefix.\n\u003e \n\u003e JS\n\u003e \n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.\n\u003e Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security \n\u003e threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes \n\u003e sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.\n\u003e http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2_______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n-- \nDouglas Huff",
"sig": "7ce8c772aa59db11a76193b24309d5a9a3109f8a94483fc70e9c2dfeb6448076e30685072287ead0b578e5cdc5aeeaf56525b5096b844cac7ca6f8f1fa377777"
}