Hi,
> Von: Amitha Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Mon 29 May 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> > There is a wxWidgets GUI in CVS. The question is, would a GUI make
> > the configure command line people happy, or will there always be a
> > group that wants a -- style command line like configure
On Mon 29 May 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> There is a wxWidgets GUI in CVS. The question is, would a GUI make
> the configure command line people happy, or will there always be a
> group that wants a -- style command line like configure.
A command-line configure is always important. Often, t
On Monday 29 May 2006 18:00, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> >There is ccmake on UNIX and (the more powerful) cmakesetup on Windows for
> > this job. What is missing is something like a "qcmake", which would add a
> > nice GUI to all available options.
>
> There is a wxWidgets GUI in CVS. The questio
At 02:42 AM 5/29/2006, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>There is ccmake on UNIX and (the more powerful) cmakesetup on Windows for this
>job. What is missing is something like a "qcmake", which would add a nice GUI
>to all available options.
There is a wxWidgets GUI in CVS. The question is, would a
> Von: Thomas Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Friday 26 May 2006 17:55, you wrote:
> > >A 'configure' script generator that will just convert between the
> > > (good old) configure and the cmake foo. Makes it actually possible
> > > to discover what features there are without consulting online
At 10:56 AM 5/28/2006, Thomas Zander wrote:
>On Sunday 28 May 2006 15:39, James Mansion wrote:
>> >Its when I type 'make' it takes upto a minute before it actually
>> > starts with the first gcc, even if I typed make moments before. (I
>> > just typed 'make | less' this time).
>>
>> That looks like
On Sunday 28 May 2006 15:39, James Mansion wrote:
> >Its when I type 'make' it takes upto a minute before it actually
> > starts with the first gcc, even if I typed make moments before. (I
> > just typed 'make | less' this time).
>
> That looks like make's performance problem doesn't it?
I don't s
>When I change a couple of header files I suddenly see it reconfiguring for
>no apparent reason.
Is the generated makefile thinking that there is a change in
CMakeLists.txt somewhere? Surely cmake is actually out of the
picture unless you tell it to rebuild the makefiles?
>Its when I type 'make
Thomas Zander wrote:
But, to directly answer your assertion; the most human feeling of me
feeling lost when there is something new to learn is not the reason for
my emails here. I honestly find it counter productive of you to go for
that excuse. Its soo easy.
The suggestions I made here are
On Friday 26 May 2006 21:00, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > The problem with the use-(g)make decision is that you are stuck with
> > using unintuitive variable names to alter the build process.
> >
> Then dump it and develop with VC++. Or some other compiler with a
> better (or just different ;
On Friday 26 May 2006 21:42, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Another issue is that an autoconf ./configure script typically relies
> on libtool. You don't wanna go there.
Read my other mails in this thread please; its the NAME ONLY I suggested
to use.
If the configure script is just 4kb and does n
At 05:03 PM 5/26/2006, Axel Roebel wrote:
>cmake --help
>"cmake variables"
> --build_type Choose the type of build, options are: ...
> --install_prefix Install path prefix, prepended onto install directories
> --verbose_make If this value is on, makefiles will be
>
>project options
>--US
On Friday 26 May 2006 21:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think it's a very good idea to add "cmake --prefix=foo" because 1
> gazillion ./configure users would get warm squishy feelings from such
> functionality. Although, it could become an Uncanny Valley problem.
> The closer you get to repres
Filipe Sousa wrote:
There is always ccmake and cmakeseup. Another option is to create a tool
called "cconfigure" for those who like configure scripts. That shouldn't
be to hard to implement. cconfigure --help would show the same options
as ccmake:
$ ./cconfigure --help
--cmake_build_type
Thomas Zander wrote:
I have helped a set of people on irc to get started with koffice compiling
using cmake. They all had a lot of problems with the arcane variables
like the CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX and most people find that D in front a bit
weird a well.
So; instead of letting the user (n
Thomas Zander wrote:
Its because it slows me down a lot.
When I change a couple of header files I suddenly see it reconfiguring for
no apparent reason.
Its when I type 'make' it takes upto a minute before it actually starts
with the first gcc, even if I typed make moments before. (I just
On Friday 26 May 2006 18:02, frederic heem wrote:
> Actually, I wonder why CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE is not set to TRUE by
> default, each time, I have to set it manually and I find it quite
> annoying.
Everyone I know gave a sigh of relieve when unsermake (2 years ago)
introduced the concept of sh
At 12:13 PM 5/26/2006, Thomas Zander wrote:
>On Friday 26 May 2006 17:55, you wrote:
>> >A 'configure' script generator that will just convert between the
>> > (good old) configure and the cmake foo. Makes it actually possible
>> > to discover what features there are without consulting online
>> >
Lloyd Hilaiel wrote:
> Yo Thomas,
>
> We use cmake to build a large project (10 or so different SDKs).
>
> In our case, we too wanted a cmakebuild tool, so we wrote one.
> It wraps the native build tools with a higher level of commands
> "build debug" "build release" "run tests" "package SDKs" et
Filipe Sousa wrote:
frederic heem wrote:
On Friday 26 May 2006 17:52, Craig Bradney wrote:
Actually, I wonder why CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE is not set to TRUE by default,
each time, I have to set it manually and I find it quite annoying.
If CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE was set to TRUE by default it
Yo Thomas,
We use cmake to build a large project (10 or so different SDKs).
In our case, we too wanted a cmakebuild tool, so we wrote one.
It wraps the native build tools with a higher level of commands
"build debug" "build release" "run tests" "package SDKs" etc.
Some of the commands for this b
frederic heem wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 17:52, Craig Bradney wrote:
> Actually, I wonder why CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE is not set to TRUE by default,
> each time, I have to set it manually and I find it quite annoying.
If CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE was set to TRUE by default it would be quite
anno
On Friday 26 May 2006 17:55, you wrote:
> >A 'configure' script generator that will just convert between the
> > (good old) configure and the cmake foo. Makes it actually possible
> > to discover what features there are without consulting online
> > documentation ;)
>
> I am not sure about what yo
At 12:02 PM 5/26/2006, frederic heem wrote:
>Actually, I wonder why CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE is not set to TRUE by default,
>each time, I have to set it manually and I find it quite annoying.
It is a matter of taste. Some folks like to see pages and pages of output even
if it builds nothing. Some
On Friday 26 May 2006 17:52, Craig Bradney wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 17:05, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > On Friday 26 May 2006 16:24, you wrote:
> > > I am not sure I understand what you want to type to do the build?
> >
> > williamMake would do; of wmake if you want. :)
> > Bottom line; I don't c
At 11:05 AM 5/26/2006, Thomas Zander wrote:
>On Friday 26 May 2006 16:24, you wrote:
>> I am not sure I understand what you want to type to do the build?
>
>williamMake would do; of wmake if you want. :)
>Bottom line; I don't care what the name is as long as it _can_ be made
>more usable. Which is
On Friday 26 May 2006 17:05, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 26 May 2006 16:24, you wrote:
> > I am not sure I understand what you want to type to do the build?
>
> williamMake would do; of wmake if you want. :)
> Bottom line; I don't care what the name is as long as it _can_ be made
> more usable
Thomas Zander wrote:
On Friday 26 May 2006 16:24, you wrote:
I am not sure I understand what you want to type to do the build?
williamMake would do; of wmake if you want. :)
Bottom line; I don't care what the name is as long as it _can_ be made
more usable. Which is impossible with make.
[s
On Friday 26 May 2006 16:24, you wrote:
> I am not sure I understand what you want to type to do the build?
williamMake would do; of wmake if you want. :)
Bottom line; I don't care what the name is as long as it _can_ be made
more usable. Which is impossible with make.
You apparently are complet
At 07:30 AM 5/26/2006, Thomas Zander wrote:
>Hiya;
>In KDE (including KOffice) we switched to cmake, as you are probably
>aware. I naturally like the speedups we got in linking etc. but I like
>the less then stellar usability of the cmake solution a lot less. (at
>this point I would gladly go ba
On Friday 26 May 2006 14:03, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Thomas Zander wrote:
> > Hiya;
> > In KDE (including KOffice) we switched to cmake, as you are probably
> > aware. I naturally like the speedups we got in linking etc. but I
> > like the less then stellar usability of the cmake solution a l
Thomas Zander wrote:
Hiya;
In KDE (including KOffice) we switched to cmake, as you are probably
aware. I naturally like the speedups we got in linking etc. but I like
the less then stellar usability of the cmake solution a lot less. (at
this point I would gladly go back to the slower linking,
Hiya;
In KDE (including KOffice) we switched to cmake, as you are probably
aware. I naturally like the speedups we got in linking etc. but I like
the less then stellar usability of the cmake solution a lot less. (at
this point I would gladly go back to the slower linking, to be honest)
I'm wond
33 matches
Mail list logo
