[CMake] Separate object directories on Linux?

[Hendrik Sattler]

Am Mittwoch 02 April 2008 schrieb Alexander Neundorf:
> >  - the eclipse project is totally useless without that option as the
> > project are about editing the source, not just triggering the build from
> > a GUI :-/
>
> Not really. If you build in-source (which is usually not recommended)
> everything is just fine. If you build out-of-source, and the build dir is
> NOT a subdirectory if the source dir, a "linked resource" to the source
> files is created, so that works then too.

Can the variable be included into the list of variables, seen be ccmake and 
cmake-gui? This way, you don't have to remember it. This can be dependent on 
the position of source and build directory to each other (means: only when 
that option makes sense).

> > Why aren't there options for generators? They could ask about the
> > Makefile type and about creating that .project file in the source dir.
> > The current way is really hard to sell to users. The above command line
> > should be: $ cmake -GEclipse ../certi_src
> > The CDT4 is irrelevant and even hurts if JDT support for Java is ever
> > added.
>
> I don't know the details, but wouldn't we need a different generator when
> creating a project file for Java ?

And then you create a mixed project...
No, if possible, it should be "one IDE -> one generator".

> > It is also irrelevant that it uses Makefiles because that may also
> > change?!
>
> Well, exactly for the case that this might change it is not irrelevant,
> because then you have to tell cmake what you want, makefiles or ant or
> whatever together with eclipse project files.

That's why I said that we need generator options, and those should not be 
mixed into the generator name because there is no other way...
The Makefile generator(s) has/have the same problems. I see this as a 
usability issue.

> > And if no make is available but nmake, why does the user actually
> > have to specify that? On Linux, you don't even have a choice and this
> > makes the name even more questionable.
>
> Yes, it's a long name, but it's consistent and self-documenting :-)

Hey, it doesn't contain the default compiler name for each Makefile 
generator ;)

> > The WIKI Eclipse entry is also hard to understand: in "Accessing the
> > Source and Advanced Editing Features", it is not clear wether the extra
> > definition is needed or not. It is missing a conclusion like: do it that
> > way and you'll can do anything in Eclipse like normal.
>
> It's a wiki, please create an account and improve the wording :-)

The problem is Eclipse knowledge, here. As I said, I didn't get what's the way 
to make that all work. I don't care which one, just not in-source (because 
there is no "make distclean", is that really that hard to implement?).

HS