�� �� �� �� - About CMake, you may be right that makefile is better than CMake but a part of the world is using
�� �� �� �� CMake and the net result is that we lost our effort and infrastructure just to follow you. Ronie uses CMake.��
�� �� �� �� Igor which I consider as a talented developer used CMake because he thought it was the best tool
�� �� �� �� he should use.
Yes, and I disagree about the way that they use it, and for good reason.�� I have defended my use of Makefiles for a long time, for objective reasons.��
These reasons may be technically correct, but in terms of *community* consider it similar to premature optimization.
For yourself, the priority is a faster build.�� Others may prioritize a faster coding workflow using an IDE like Visual Studio.
Indeed, back when I trialed building minheadless on Windows a *primary* consideration was that it looked easy to��
use Visual Studio because minheadless had a CMake build.�� That led to me contributing a couple of small fixes for win64,
but without the enticement of CMake I might never have opened that box.�� ��
Consider then the possibility that a portion of our Windows using community remains untapped��
because their skill set is Visual Studio and they don't see an easy path to using it with plain makefiles**.
So it depends on what is better for the *community* to optimize for:
* faster build-time for incumbents (important because thats where the majority of contributions come from)�� ��
* broader community involvement with a workflow accelerating IDE (important because growing the vm community is important, from which additional core devs may arise)��
** I do understand that plain makefiles can be used with VS, but I'm not clear on the setup and��
unsure if all the fancy intellisense tools work.
I have also proposed good ways for using CMake (to derive a platform-specific header file defining available platform-specific features).��
I presume its the additional multi-build-system features that people want CMake for, not just the using it in name only.
I can't remember the trade-off between Automake-configure and CMake-configure.�� Make using CMake-configure
would make it easier to co-ordinate parallel CMake and GnuMake systems.�� I think I've noticed several large
code-bases providing both (but I'd have to check)
��
But my objection to Igor's process was that he generated sources on each build.��
��
And my objections to Ronie's use of CMake for the minheadless build are that a) it is slow and
I'd like to quantify that.����
@esteban, I remember you converted minheadless from CMake to Gnumake, but I'm not sure if I've got that right.
Can both be run off the current HEAD for minheadless?�� Or I could compare HEAD with a previous commit that had CMake.��
b) explicit feature sets are much better than the implicit feature sets that arise when using CMake.
I'd like to understand this better. Could you expand?
cheers -ben