[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