Re: [Chicken-users] CMake tarballs

[felix winkelmann]

On 7/29/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
> Since CMake is capable of generating its own tarballs, I'd like to put
> one up on the Chicken webpage.  It is important for people to start
> trying the build.  I believe it is now either beta quality or close to it.
>
> Come the next release of Chicken, it doesn't make much sense to
> distribute the CMake stuff together with the ./configure stuff.  They
> each do the tarball in a different way, and I'm not going to try to make
> them do it the same way.  So that means that during a long transition
> period, we'd have 2 different tarball distributions, until people become
> confident in the CMake build.

Sorry, but why do we need two different kinds of binary distributions?
Isn't the whole point of distributing a binrary to make the used build
environment transparent? The cmake build should be (and I'm sure it
is, as I've witnessed how much progress went into it) just as bad or as good
as the other binary.

So I'm rather reluctant to put up yet another binary distro - the whole point
about cmake is that it simplifies the build, not because it generates "better"
binaries (IMHO). That the cmake build has to be tested is another thing,
of course. But I'm sure developers will try cmake more once it has topped
the autotools build in terms of speed and convenience.

(I'm using autotools in the moment for most stuff, but this is likely to change
soon).


--
http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8081/blog/blog.ssp