Message-ID: <66171398@news.ausics.net>
From: not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev)
Subject: Re: Buggy bookworm?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.raspberry-pi
References: <uv3om7$agu2$1@dont-email.me> <uv49gp$efer$3@dont-email.me> <p9vhek-vqs4.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu> <uv5moa$s7bl$5@dont-email.me> <sm0edbd5u1n.fsf@lakka.kapsi.fi>
User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.31 (i586))
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net
Date: 11 Apr 2024 08:32:57 +1000
Organization: Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net
Lines: 22
X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net
Path: ...!news.snarked.org!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail
Bytes: 1619

Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
>> And none of this is well documented. As someone remarked about CMAKE,
>> "software that cannot be used because *no one knows how it works*, is 
>> useless"
> 
> Who remarked that and why? I fairly like cmake but I can't say I've used
> it a lot.

In my deliberately limited experience building software with CMake,
much of the trouble is that program developers are expected to
write detailed documentation for the build options they use, but
for the software I've compiled they simply haven't. You've got a
wall of options, and usually nothing short of reading source code
to decide what they do and which are important to you. Then it's
more awkward (than with a configure script) to reproduce those
settings if you want to compile a later version the same way.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#