On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:18, Ivan Vučica wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM, David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote: >> I do not wish to have extra parallel build systems maintained by other >> people in the tree, because that has caused confusion in the past both among >> packagers and among people building from source. I want to make life easy >> for building packages, and CMake does this: it exports the configurable >> options in a way that is easy to parse and package managers already have a >> lot of infrastructure for dealing with CMake from packaging KDE and other >> things that use it. > > How about moving it to "unmaintained/" or "unsupported/" and leaving a README > that documents them as such -- thus preventing people from confusing them for > something that's actively supported? They may still be a neat way to > bootstrap the system on some of the platforms while using a great runtime > instead of a good runtime.
That's possible. Users would have to copy the [GNU]Makefile out of unsupported/, but I don't mind leaving them in svn if that would be helpful. One of the advantages of CMake is that cross-building is now trivial (this was one of my motivations, as I'm doing quite a bit of work on ARM and MIPS platforms these days and want to be able to cross-compile more easily - cross-building GNUstep is very hard currently), so if you are bringing up a new platform then this is likely to be easier than using the Makefile. > Just throwing an idea. All the work on libobjc2 is, of course, already > greatly appreciated. Thank you. David -- Sent from my PDP-11 _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
