discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Some random thoughs and questions on the future of GNUstep


From: Helge Hess
Subject: Re: Some random thoughs and questions on the future of GNUstep
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 20:01:08 +0200

On Sep 30, 2006, at 16:45, Nikolaus Waxweiler wrote:
Now, why CMake when we already have got GNUstep Make?  First, I must
admit that I have not used CMake extensively -- barely at all,
actually.

Now thats a very bad position to advocate for anything. Really. What about first learning CMake and then showing a prototype on how things work and would look like? :-)
That would be a much better basis to bring up such a proposal.

There are a few reasons why I propose it anyway, apart from
a big project like KDE using it.

Well, GNUstep doesn't have the major issues KDE wanted to solve with CMake. So its a really bad example. What I miss about your proposal is outlining actual problems GNUstep has and which would be solved by using cmake (and how). In my understanding the major issue KDE had was autotools and not make. Obviously GNUstep make projects do not usually need or use autotools. [and in fact we could improve even more on this by exposing configure information collected at gstep-make time to gstep-make projects]

- CMake works out dependencies of files automatically, so you can run
several concurrent build processes ("make -j 4"). I heard there were
   problems in that area with GNUstep Make.

If you read Nicola's responses to that topic (all archived, yes), you know the answer to this one. No need to guess (when I hear "I heard" ;-).

And BTW: a major difference is that as a KDE developer you can't really live w/o -j because the compiler is so slow compared to cc1obj (w/o an icecream cluster you really spend loads of time just compiling). For GNUstep it would be just a nice to have, but its not a major issue.

The general idea is to move away
from homegrown reinventions of the wheel and letting others to that
work for you.

What I like about GNUstep make is that its _not_ a reinvention of the wheel but a very clever use of the existing stuff. In fact you could possibly say that CMake is a reinvention of gstep-make? Probably around much longer ;-)


Anyway, would be interesting to see what people come up with :-) GNUstep-make is certainly not perfect but quite nice overall. I would be interested to see how a typical GNUstep make package would look like in cmake.

Greets,
  Helge
--
Helge Hess
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]