dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday August 9 2010 09:46:16 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 09:41 -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > On Monday August 9 2010 09:25:44 Garth N. Wells wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 09:13 -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > > Will CMake eventually supersede SCons? If so what are the reason
> > > > behind such a decision?
> > > 
> > > Maybe. CMake is there now for anyone to try (it's not yet complete).
> > > SCons and CMake can co-exist so we can experiment before making any
> > > decision.
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > > We rely on a home-baked SCons (simula-scons), whereas CMake is
> > > maintained by others. simula-scons is hard for the uninitiated
> > > (including me) to work with. CMake seems easier (twe'll see if that's
> > > true after playing around with it). There are quite a few test files
> > > already available of the shelf for dependencies, and it also has a nice
> > > GUI which I think users will appreciate.
> > 
> > I see these points. I wonder how the daily user experience will be with
> > CMake. Any unessesary recompilations?
> 
> So far, it only seems that the SWIG-generated files are recompiled
> unnecessarily. I'm sure that that can be fixed.

Ok, so this means I can go ahead and compile DOLFIN using CMake right now?

Looking forward to see how it works!

> > I have to say that SCons, together with the homebrewed simula-scons have
> > fitted my need very well. I have also been able to use simula-scons for
> > other softwares.
> > 
> > That said, I know of several large code bases (KDE included) that ditched
> > SCons for CMake for the same reasons you mention. And I have also been
> > happy with compiling the CMake dependent libraries DOLFIN depends on.
> 
> Trilinos now uses CMake, and has gone from being a nightmare to build to
> being easy.
> 
> > > Apparently CMake has built-in support for creating packages on Mac
> > > which is useful.
> > 
> > Ok, and Windows packages?
> 
> It's claimed to work . . . .

:)

Johan