From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Neundorf Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:55:12 +0200 Message-ID: <200806160955.12752.neundorf@eit.uni-kl.de> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080613222523.GA28805@shareable.org> <20080613231932.GW13599@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080613231932.GW13599@pengutronix.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Linux Embedded Maillist On Saturday 14 June 2008 01:19:32 you wrote: ... > I still don't understand why all the scons, cmakes and jams out there > don't even try to provide the *standard* user interface everyone is used > to on a unix system. For cmake: CMake has a cache, where the values of variables are stored, e.g. if an option is enabled or not, or where a library has been found (e.g. JPEG_LIBRARY=/usr/local/lib/libjpeg.so). The way to influence the behaviour of cmake is to change the value of these variables, this can be done either via a GUI (curses based or with cmake 2.6 also a graphical one), or via the command line: $ cmake -D= ...more options There is no simple automatic mapping from the variables to enabling features. Anyway, it is on the TODO for cmake to add some kind of support for project-configurable command line options, so that configure-compatible options could be provided. > > Lots of packages need special tools or other software installed to > > build them; this is no different. > > autotools need only a shell and make Yes, and requiring a shell is a lot, in the case you want to port also to Windows. Alex