| < Previous by Date | Date Index | Next by Date > |
| < Previous in Thread | Thread Index | Next in Thread > |
Yes, any change like this would be an inconvenience to some. I hope that we could get an idea of how many would have a difficult time with a change like this, so if anyone falls into this category, please speak up. We are very much in a phase where we need this input.
Best regards,
Byron CampenOn Jan 4, 2014 5:47 PM, "Joegen Baclor" <jbaclor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 01/05/2014 12:24 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
It is worth mentioning that some projects (like mine) has integrated resiprocate as a native submodule utilizing the capability of autotools to nest other project within a single homogeneous build. This is not a complaint but just a side note. Whatever works best for resiprocate, I won't have trouble with.
On 04/01/14 17:18, Byron Campen wrote:
While I do like cmake, it is not a panacea, and there are some sharp
edges. I think it might be illustrative to try writing a cmake build for
rutil/stack (plus tests), and see how much pain we run into. I can give
this a go, since I have some experience with it.
Any feedback about it would be great, feel free to add to the wiki as well
In terms of priorities, I think that any cmake effort can probably wait
until after the 1.9.0 release has been tagged though. Most of my own
tweaks are now committed and will appear in a beta9 tarball very soon
and it would be useful to have any final concerns/problems listed if
anybody thinks it is not suitable for release.
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel