[CMake] Secret precompiled header support?

[Robert Dailey]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave at boostpro.com> wrote:

>
> on Tue May 15 2012, Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave at boostpro.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     on Mon May 14 2012, Robert Dailey <
> rcdailey.lists-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> >     > Is improvement desired in this area?
> >
> >
> >     By me, yes.
> >
> > By this, do you mean, you've taken an initiative to fix this yourself?
> > If so, let me know if I can help out with anything.
>
> No, it means I desire an improvement.
>
> >     > Is the current implementation really satisfactory?
> >
> >
> >     For me, no. I'm trying to make a transition to CMake in a community
> >     where this is being seen as a problematic limitation.
> >
> > I actually was reading over the boost modularization discussion, but I
> > didn't spend enough time there to understand what this whole process
> > is for. I'm assuming this is being setup so users can download pieces
> > of boost individually and only use the parts they want. I'm glad that
> > Boost is making a real effort to use CMake. I think such an
> > influential community being involved with CMake will help push Kitware
> > to realize how serious people are taking their products and maybe
> > they'll make a move to "professionalize" them. By that I mean, CMake
> > is a great tool but very inconsistent and somewhat messy and obscure
> > in a lot of areas.
>
> I have to say that I'm thoroughly impressed that CMake is as clear as it
> is, and also impressed with the community's (and Kitware's)
> responsiveness to requests for clarification.
>
> > Major work needs to be done here to polish everything and make it feel
> > organized and professional. You can claim "portability" all day but
> > you have to do it right. Right now I feel CMake is 60% there. I say
> > that because that 40% I had to implement via CMake scripts over the
> > course of several months, resulting in a couple thousand lines of
> > CMake code (to handle transitive include dependencies,
> > compiler-agnostic features such as PCH and warning levels,
> > private/public include directories, and other things).
>
> Maybe you'd like to contribute some of those upstream to CMake (or, if
> not, at least to the Ryppl project)?


As much as I'd love to contribute, I quite simply just do not have the
time. It's typical of open source / linux people to rashly and sometimes
harshly demand people "do the work themselves, or stfu". It sounds like
that's where this conversation is headed.

I can contribute as much as my opinion and suggestions (as a general
end-user of the product), nothing more. I have time for small fixes and
whatnot every now and then, but by no means can I dedicate so much time to
the product. I don't feel like actual work needs to be done in order to
justify sharing my opinions on CMake.

I appreciate CMake greatly, after all, I can't imagine where I'd be right
now without it. Even having half of what CMake is today would be enough for
me. Things can always be better, that's the main point I'm making. CMake is
functional right now for my day to day needs (for the most part), but a lot
of the changes I mentioned can help improve usability and maintainability
of the build systems designed around CMake. The goal for CMake certainly
isn't just "functional", I hope.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20120516/49c0ff1f/attachment.htm>