CMake vs autoconf

[Kevin Cozens]

On 12-01-10 09:28 PM, William Park wrote:
> For user, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's CMake or autoconf.
> But, if anyone is writing build scripts, is it really easier?

The only time I've looked behind the scenes of a CMake build environment was 
when I helped fix some build issues in Blender regarding the support for a 
Space Navigator. The initial impression was that it appeared better than the 
autofoo stuff but after a little while I started to think it might not be 
much simpler, just different.

The one thing CMake has going for is being able to have all files related to 
compilation go to a directory separate from the actual source tree. This has 
the advantage you can have separate sub-directories with builds using 
different configuration options in CMake at the same time from the same 
source code without having to do full recompiles every time you switch build 
versions.

-- 
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.ve3syb.ca/           |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172      | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're
                                 | powerful!"
#include <disclaimer/favourite> |             --Chris Hardwick
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists