If somebody would be working on this fulltime it would be possible, maybe. Additionally if there are build problems, we would have to find out which version he is actually running and then fix the support for that version again. This would make our build scripts more complex and harder to understand and maintain. there would have to be either if()s or wrapper macros to handle the differences. What are the downsides ? First, our scripts would have to handle the different versions, i.e. In general, it would be possible to write our cmake files in such a way that they still require only 2.4.5 but make use of the new features of newer versions of cmake if available.īut this has downsides, and I'd say the downsides outweight the advantages. There were more minor things, but these two are the important ones. This was also the case with CMake 2.6.0, the feature to define the link interface for libraries had issues and also the support for searching FooConfig.cmake files didn't consider the lib64/ directories. "Should" as in "if we don't, distros will maintain huge patches and ship something we didn't develop".Īs with every new major release of a software, it shouldn't be completely surprising that once a lot of people start using it, bugs are found. Just remove the directory if you don't want it anymore.ĬMake 2.6.0 was a new major release of CMake, coming with a lot of new features, and we should use these features. This way it is really easy to install cmake cleanly separated from the rest of your system, so it doesn't mess in any way with your packaging system. In order to make installing that version easier I posted this blog entry. the discussion before requiring 2.4.5), but this time I didn't really have another option.Īlso I announced it 3 weeks in advance and there were basically no complaints. I understand that you don't like that and I always try to avoid the situation that we require a version of CMake which is not yet available from most distros by default (check e.g. I know that right now CMake 2.6.2 is not yet available as distro package. Do you know any software which is already now compatible to the features of future versions of the same software ? > incompatible that kde just outright refuses to compileĬMake 2.6.2 is backwards compatible to 2.6.0, 2.6.0 is not forward compatible to 2.6.2. > It's really weird that 2.6.0 and 2.6.2 are so I already wrote a reply yesterday, but it seems I forgot to actually hit "Save" :-/ Just download the packages (as shown above) and install them into separate directories e.g. In you can still get CMake 2.4.x, 2.2.x and back until the ancient version 1.2. $ tar -zxvf cmake-2.6.Īnd now you are already ready to use it: $ cd src/my_projectītw., this way it is also very easy to have multiple different versions of CMake on your system. At least I haven't found an x86 Linux box yet where they don't work. You think they won't work on your Linux distribution ? I can tell you, they most probably will. Of course you can get the sources (from cvs or as source package from ) and build it yourself.īut you can also get away with less work and just use the binary CMake packages provided by. Version 2.6.2 has been released just a few weeks ago, so maybe there are not yet packages for all distros. KDE svn trunk requires 2.6.2 since last week.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |