This is stupid argument...
Posted Nov 8, 2011 5:47 UTC (Tue) by khim
In reply to: Well, there are...
Parent article: libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers
Second of all, most users never have to build tarballs. They simply install the binary package provided by their distribution.
So what? For them CMake or autoconf make no difference. You may as well talk about preference of people who never seen a computer at all.
First of all, as I made clear, CMake provides a better experience for both developers and people building tarballs.
May be. But most people who touch your build system are neither developers of your project nor people who are building tarballs - they are people who are using these tarballs. And for them Scons/CMake/etc suck - simply because they offer nothing new over autotools and must be treated quite differently to get the same result.
Maybe what you're trying to refer to, in a very indirect way, is that distribution guys who package software are more familiar with autotools than CMake.
Not just distribution guys. Developers, too. If I'm developer and you library is autoconfiscated then I can drop the directory with this library in my project, add few lines to configure.ac/Makefile.am - and that's all. If your library uses CMake or SCONS I need to do a lot of manipulations to convince it to play along.
Most system administrators are more familiar with Windows than Linux; does that mean we should switch?
This depends on your goal. Sometimes it's good idea to start with Windows and add Linux port later. Note that some administrators know Windows and some know Linux, but few know both well. The same is true for developers. When you try to use some "universal solution" you usually just make life miserable for everyone. It's much better to use Visual Studio projects on Windows and autotools on Linux rather then try to use SCONS or CMake for both.
to post comments)