[sldev] Heads up - we're working on CMake

Dzonatas dzonatas at dzonux.net
Thu Nov 29 08:02:34 PST 2007


Alissa Sabre wrote:
> Note that I have no objection to switch to cmake.  What I heard about
> cmake sounds good.  I'm suggesting a better process to adopt cmake.
>   

Likewise, I have no objection to *test* cmake.  As of this date, the 
amount of direct feedback I have received from Lindens about the OSLCC 
version of llscons to build the viewer is absolutely zilch. The OSLCC 
version meets the same basic requirements as stated by BOS, or it at 
least can further progress to other desired requirements. I started the 
OSLCC version based on requests by Lindens and in order for me to build 
the viewer with scons on Windows and under a cross-compiler. It 
successfully has done such... proven by this release where not a single 
use of VS project files were used to build it:

SecondLifeSandbox-1.18.0.6.OS.3-Setup.exe:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=191214

Rob Linden asks if it is a substantial improvement over the existing 
scons file:
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Open_Source_Meeting/2007-10-25  (about 
14:26 in log)

With zilch for feedback, I can't tell anybody if it is a substantial 
improvement. I feel it is headed towards to being complete waste of time 
to extend it beyond my needs (I, and all Express users, can't use the 
project files at all, even if cmake builds them).

I am curious about the nmake files that cmake generates, but I'm not 
going to waste any more time, when there is no other feedback, to build 
a cmake equilavent of what I already done in OSLCC/llscons just to test 
the nmake builds. If BOS wants to continue progress with cmake, allow 
the test phase on it and the nmakes work fine, then awesome!

P.S. LL already has my CA on file.


-- 
Power to Change the Void


More information about the SLDev mailing list