[Bf-committers] to make or not to make
Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:56:27 +0000 (GMT)
--- "Ryan C. Stallings (beergeek)"
<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Priority #1 is getting
the build system put in
> place. The cmake discussions
> seem to have stagnated, I thought I would recap
> where we stand and what are
> the pros/cons of the situation. Then I vote that we
> make a decision and move
Perhaps we need to cmakify blender in order for people
to make a decision? Although the work you did
previously should give them enough of a taste :)
> cmake pros:
> -Works on all the platforms we use
> -Open source so it can be distributed freely and/or
> modified if needed
> -Allows parallel building (build/object files in a
> different directory from
> the source)
> -simple to use. not as complex as full
> makefiles/autoconf (which means not as
> cmake cons (and possible solutions)
> -Another tool to throw in the mix.
> -we could provide nightly snapshots with the
> makefiles/project files
> -Uses absolute paths in the build files
> - we could write a script that goes through the
> make files and subs the
> absolute path for the relative one
> -It might not be powerful enough to do everything we
> -It may be possible to expand cmake to do what we
> -its not the "standard" way to compile on any
> -Chris Want reported of a negative experience using
> -I tried compiling vtk on both Windows and OSX and
> did not have any
Unlike automake cmake requires very few dependencies.
eg automake requires perl!
Another disadvantage of autoconf/automake is that it
is *slow*. It takes almost an hour on my
cygwin/win98/p166mmx 64MB ram box just to do the
configure! In the same amount of time I can get a
decent way through a full compile of larger
After tangling with the autotools for the last few
days, I can say I don't like it. I would prefer
cmake, or the current makefiles because of speed.
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts