It's not important
Posted Nov 10, 2011 23:28 UTC (Thu) by khim
In reply to: That's why I've said "not just distribution guys".
Parent article: libabc: a demonstration library for kernel developers
Just because scons doesn't scale, though, we can't conclude that autotools does scale. The comparison in that article is not against automake, but against gmake, which is basically an implementation of plain old make.
Automake uses simple make "behind the scenes" so it's speed is similar to make.
In my experience, CMake is much faster than autotools.
Yes, but difference is constant, it does not depend on size of project. I can live with one munite null build: not perfect, but acceptable. But Scons can easily take minutes just to say that you don't need to build anything!
You keep claiming that not having a "configure" command is some kind of fundamental stumbling block for you when understanding other build systems.
This is not a stumbling block. This is litmus test. If people don't bother to even provide such a simple thing then what else have they decided to redo without a good reason? In case of CMake the asnwer is: almost everything. Perhaps first-class Windows support requires that, I don't know, but since I'm not interested in first-class Windows support...
The 'cmake' command is pretty much the CMake equivalent of configure.
It's not backward compatible, it assumes the whole world adopted CMake already, it provides no way to use existing autoconfiscated projects as subprojects. Basically: it's my way or the highway. Not a good way to offer replacement. When KDE4 and GNOME3 did that lots of people decided to keep old version alive for as long as possible. With autotools this decision makes even more sense because autotools developers have no intention to drop everything in favor of CMake so you can continue to use autotools and ignore CMake.
I have no doubt that upstart and systemd have some kind of support for dropping in sysV init scripts.
They both work as drop-in replacements for Sysv init. You can just replace Sysv init with upstart and systemd - and everything just continue to work. However. Systemd decided not to support upstart compatibility - and as a result Ubuntu ignored it.
In practice, using the new system require retraining and maybe even (gasp!) learning some new commands.
Sure. This is where systemd largely dropped the ball. But at least it provided a cheat sheet and tried to support the same capabilities. CMake (like most "modern" systems) decided to redo everything. For example: why "./configure CC=/my/super/duper/cc" becomes "cmake -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=/my/super/duper/cc" ?
CMake was clearly built by people who wanted to "throw away all the legacy" - eventually they added most of it back, but in mangled and crippled form. And they arrogantly assume that everyone will want to adopt CMake: all tutorials assume I want to convert everything to CMake right away and that I'll never want to go back. This level of arrogance does not inspire confidence, sorry.
to post comments)