CMake vs autoconf

[Syed Faisal Akber]

Quoting Kevin Cozens <kevin-4dS5u2o1hCn3fQ9qLvQP4Q at public.gmane.org>:

> 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.

You can do that with the regular make as well.  You just run configure  
from the source tree in an empty directory elsewhere.  This works well  
when compiling gcc/binutils/etc... for many different architectures at  
the same time.

73,
Faisal

>
> -- 
> 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
>



--
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