Hi!
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 17:08:57 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, developers.
>
> As you probably know already, CMake sucks a lot. One of its more sucky
> features is that it generates Makefiles that fail a lot. In particular,
> they fail at verbose build logs that are cluttered with useless CMa
On 06/08/2015 02:01 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-06-08, o godz. 12:46:42
> hasufell napisał(a):
>
>> On 06/07/2015 05:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello, developers.
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> It's not clear to me how the transition should look like.
>>
>> Are you suggesting Ninja to be the new
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2015-06-08, o godz. 12:46:42
> hasufell napisał(a):
>
> > On 06/07/2015 05:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Hello, developers.
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > It's not clear to me how the transition should look like.
> >
> > Are you suggesting Ninja to be the new default or
Dnia 2015-06-08, o godz. 12:46:42
hasufell napisał(a):
> On 06/07/2015 05:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, developers.
> >
> [...]
>
> It's not clear to me how the transition should look like.
>
> Are you suggesting Ninja to be the new default or do you want to switch
> per-packages after
On 06/07/2015 05:08 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, developers.
>
[...]
It's not clear to me how the transition should look like.
Are you suggesting Ninja to be the new default or do you want to switch
per-packages after having tested them?
If the former, then we need a tinderbox-run.
Hello, developers.
As you probably know already, CMake sucks a lot. One of its more sucky
features is that it generates Makefiles that fail a lot. In particular,
they fail at verbose build logs that are cluttered with useless CMake
intermediate commands and hard to read. But also they sometimes
de
