Le 04/10/2021 à 15:38, Paul Harwood a écrit :
I don't have a position - but I do think the RFC should mention which solution it is proposing.
I've just added one
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 14:04, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com <mailto:even.roua...@spatialys.com>> wrote:Paul, that's a legitimate question indeed. There have indeed been discussions among devs if bindings would not better leave outside of the GDAL repository and have their own independent lives. That would conceivably be doable for the Java or CSharp bindings. More tricky for the Python bindings since we need them for the regression test suite. Adopting a new build system is indeed the opportunity to raise several questions about the existing structure (folder organization, etc), but I'm afraid that if we try to change too many things at a times, this increases the risk of failure (or at least the time to achieve the result). My own position would be, at least in the scope of this RFC, to keep the bindings in the repo (excluding the Perl ones that will be removed in GDAL 3.5, in favor of the out-of-tree Perl FFI bindings) and build them through GDAL's main CMake. CMake4GDAL has already support for that: https://github.com/miurahr/cmake4gdal/tree/master/cmakelists/gdal/swig <https://github.com/miurahr/cmake4gdal/tree/master/cmakelists/gdal/swig> Even Le 04/10/2021 à 14:41, Paul Harwood a écrit :-- http://www.spatialys.com <http://www.spatialys.com>I am not sure if I should be posting this here or on the bug - so I am starting here. The RFC does not mention (either positively or negatively) the SWIG bindings. Just for the avoidance of doubt : - It should probably be made clear in the doc if the SWIG bindings are to be included in the CMAKE build process, and - I ask the question, in all innocence and without any prejudice on my behalf or even idea of what the answer would be, since if there were to be a better way of organising things then a major refactor of the build process would be the correct time to implement it. Paul On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 12:49, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com <mailto:even.roua...@spatialys.com>> wrote: Hi, Please find at https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/4590 <https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/4590> a RFC that proposes: - to develop a CMake build system, officially integrated in the source tree. - and remove the current GNU makefiles and nmake build systems, when the CMake build system has matured enough and reached feature parity. Best regards, Een-- http://www.spatialys.com <http://www.spatialys.com>My software is free, but my time generally not. _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev>My software is free, but my time generally not.
-- http://www.spatialys.com My software is free, but my time generally not.
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
