On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 08:57 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > http://www.cmake.org/HTML/Documentation.html Yes, indeed that is the CMake I meant -- there is of course more than one `cmake'. > which appears to be very unofficial (or just official but crappy) and has > these problems at first glance: > - Can't specify the version require. > - Looks for GTKGLArea, for no apparent reason. Hardly anybody needs this. The latter doesn't worry me but the former is an issue, though I think it can be programmed, it just hasn't been as yet. > I guess there built-in GTK support is implemented with some script > somewhere. Maybe you can do something similar for gtkmm and give it back > to them. Yes it is and I think it needs a lot more work to be as functional as the m4 macros associated with Autotools. > The UsePkgConfig macro mentioned on that page is probably more appropriate. > > But after this first disappointing (though superficial) introduction to > CMake, it doesn't seem worth it to me. The quandry for me is that I find the Autotools really rather yukky though they can do the job, well on UNIX anyway. On Windows it is a non-starter (they work under Cygwin and MSYS but these are side-line technologies for Windows applications). I have looked at SCons, Rant, Rake, Waf and CMake and whilst some of them have really strong features as build systems none are yet as functional as Autotools is currently. Of course for GTK, Windows is more or less a non issue, it is fundamentally a UNIX technology so I guess for GTKmm and related technologies Autotools works and so there is no need for anything else. The KDE people have switched from Autotools to CMake (mostly to deal with the multi-platform issue) but may be they are the only people who will. -- Russel. ==================================================== Dr Russel Winder +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK russel russel org uk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part