Re: [Openexr-devel] looking for a working 2.0.1 Windows build

[Sean Y Chen]

Hi,

Just to weigh in on the CMake issue, coming from me, someone who is quite inexperienced at all this stuff, I found CMake not to be too difficult to use, given that I knew what macros to pass. Every time I rebuild exr for a different machine I have to remember what I did (and look at some online blogs that have guides).

I too also had the Iex non-dll issue mentioned in another thread but in my application it didn't affect anything.

S

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Halfdan Ingvarsson <address@hidden> wrote:

On 14-06-17 11:05 AM, Michel Lerenard wrote:

On 06/17/2014 04:37 PM, Nick wrote:

For quite a while we maintained vcproj's for EXR - that works but you end up needing to keep old copies of visual studio around to make sure that it builds for 2008, 2010, 2012, ...., and then you need to run regressions on every variant to make sure nothing broke. It gets really time consuming. I think the same argument would hold for xcodeproj files.

As far as I know, the same argument is applied when using CMake: at some point you have to compile the source and use Visual.
As I see it, no maintainer today is able to check all versions of the compilers, with or without CMake.

CMake solves nothing but adds a layer of complexity because configuring is neither trivial nor intuitive.

I beg to differ. It has been an absolute life-saver; especially when maintaining tooling for multiple heterogeneous platforms. Earlier versions were a little sketchy when it came to external dependency discovery, but it's much, much better now.

The fact that I've been able to move from makefiles to ninja on Linux, without changing a single thing, is just icing on the cake.

I just have to hold my nose when dealing with the syntax.

 - ½

_______________________________________________
Openexr-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel