dolfin team mailing list archive

[Johannes Ring <johannr@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Johan Hake <johan.hake@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday August 9 2010 10:09:26 Johan Hake wrote:
>> 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?
>
> That went sweet! Ridiculous simple! The amount of files we need to provide
> were also extremely small.
>
> Nice work Johannes!

Thanks :-) It's actually only something I played with during the rainy
days in the summer.

>
> Johan
>
>> 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 . . . .
>> :
>> :)

Yes, it should work. I have good experiences with creating binary
installers for both Mac and Windows for another CMake based project
(vmtk, vmtk.org).

Johannes

>> Johan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>