On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:40:19AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:17:51 -0600, Matt Dew <m...@osource.org> wrote: > > > >> Would I be burned in effigy if I asked about: > > > > Yes. > > Sweet. bring on the pitchforks. > > > >> 1) just moving the build system away from autotools to cmake > > > > cmake isn't nearly as flexible as autotools, and requires that cmake be > > present on the build system to build tarballs. Plus, it doesn't reduce > > the steps needed to build the system, just (purports) to make the > > maintenance of the build system easier. > > Is all that flexibility needed? Does it get used? every package > checks for things like 'size_t supported...yes' and 'max length of > gcc command line parameters....65535'. Are these things still > needed? > Anyone used cmake, can you comment on this one? >...
That's not a new discussion, and it's leading nowhere. Many people don't love the autotools, but: - they do work and - switching to anything else would be a lot of work and - some posts on a mailing list will not change anything. Open Source Software development does *not* work as follows: - Hundreds of developers are just waiting to hear your great ideas and are glad to implement them. Open Source Software development does work as follows: - *You* create patches for the switch to cmake (or whatever you like). - *You* submit your patches and tell what great advantages they bring. - *You* address problems with them raised by other people. - Your patches get applied. > Matt cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel