Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 02:49 UTC, submitted by ronaldst
KDE When a project with the size and scope of KDE gets to be as big as it is, sometimes changing a decision established almost a decade earlier is very difficult. KDE has relied on autotools to build most of the project since its inception, but for the last year, KDE 4 has been building with CMake, a newer build system that is rapidly becoming a heavyweight contender. Read on for more.
Thread beginning with comment 215798
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Sheesh
by butters on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 05:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Sheesh"
butters
Member since:
2005-07-08

They're also very good articles.

I like the idea of the series, and I agree with the other comments to the extent that the articles keep interest in KDE4 high and claims of vaporware low, but I think that many of these articles suck, quite frankly.

This one was pretty good, but some of the others were extremely bad. The first one on Decibel comes to mind. So if Troy is still reading this thread, keep doing the article series, but work a little harder on the articles. For instance:

Give a good overview of what the particular component does (it's purpose and rationale) in the second paragraph, right after the teaser. I don't want to read about the history of pdf viewers in KDE before finally getting a good idea of how Okular is different somewhere in the middle of the article.

More screenshots, code/shell snippets, and other visuals. It breaks up the text and keeps the reader's interest. I know for a fact that CMake has a nice UI for configuring builds, but you didn't show it, and instead claimed that you can't show screenshots of a build system. This simply isn't true. You could have shown how KDevelop integrates with CMake, and you could have also demonstrated a "hello world" CMakeLists.txt file.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Sheesh
by aseigo on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 05:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Sheesh"
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

you're confusing "the road to kde4" series (which troy authors and this article is one of) and "the pillars of kde4" series (which is done by someone else, and which the decibel articles are a part of). think of it like "CSI" and "CSI: New York", they have the same theme but topics and quality may vary. =)

you do have some interesting ideas though .. perhaps you could conspire with troy or nathan or one of the other writers to help make things even better

you mention kdevelop .. that's something that is starting to come into its own as well, btw, and would do well with an article in the next while.

Edited 2007-02-23 05:48

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Sheesh
by Doc Pain on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 06:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Sheesh"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"think of it like "CSI" and "CSI: New York", they have the same theme but topics and quality may vary. =)"

Just like "CSI: Wanne-Eickel" and "CSI: Stasi". :-)

But back on topic: I found the article quite interesting allthough I'm not a KDE developer (and surely won't be). The article furthermore mentioned the use of SNV (obsoleting CVS) for source control of KDE.

At least, cmake seems to need less dependencies than the classical way due to the optimized toolchain.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Sheesh
by postmodern on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 06:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Sheesh"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

#
# A "hello world" CMakeLists.txt example
#

message("hello world!")

There, now are you satisfied? ;)

Edited 2007-02-23 06:55

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Sheesh
by troy.unrau on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 16:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Sheesh"
troy.unrau Member since:
2007-02-23

This one was pretty good, but some of the others were extremely bad. The first one on Decibel comes to mind. So if Troy is still reading this thread, keep doing the article series, but work a little harder on the articles.

Fortunately for me, I wasn't the one responsible for the Decibel article. That one was produced by the KDE-promo team, a mostly ineffective design-by-committee type group. I write my articles on my own time and independent of any KDE influence. I usually go directly to the developers of a given component for my information rather than spend time bikeshedding with the promo folks.

Regarding your other suggestions, yes I could have wrote all of that content and made the article twice as long, but most of it is already covered in the various links I provided. I try not to get too technical, as my audience is mostly non-developers.

Reply Parent Score: 5