On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:32:26AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> It looks like a new discussion to me. I've not seen this topic on the >> ML anywhere. If it's there, please point me in that direction. > > I'm not sure about this mailing list, but in the open source world it is > a common discussion. > >> > 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. >> >> Perhaps worded poorly... >> I'm not looking for others to do the work. If anyone wants to great, >> but it's not expected and is not the point of this question. The >> purpose is to see if anyone has already looked into this and if they >> have what did they come up with. Besides, I've got enough work on my >> hands with the documentation. > > Despite opposite claims, autotools are doing a good job at their task. > > Any switch of the build system would be a huge amount of work, and when > Mikhail asked you about the benefits of switching to cmake you didn't > even bother to answer.
Agreed. It's huge work, that's why I'm asking the question. Also, I wouldn't put it as 'didn't even bother to answer'. Rather I was (and still am) looking into it and wanted to give an intelligent answer to his question. Matt _______________________________________________ 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