[reSIProcate] dumping autotools and moving to CMake?

[Byron Campen]

     Well now hold on;

1) autotools is not going anywhere, yet
2) While we maintainers have an interest in making the maintenance work 
easier (eg; not having to maintain two build systems), it is also really 
important to minimize the hurdles downstream needs to deal with (not 
just because we're nice people, but also because we want our stuff to be 
used by people who one day might be roped into^w^winterested in helping 
us maintain stuff).

Best regards,
Byron Campen

On 1/5/14 12:00 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
>
> I was disappointed to see auto tools going because I understand that 
> and not cmake but I'm not very involved so I don't really count
>
> On Jan 4, 2014 10:31 PM, "Byron Campen" <docfaraday at gmail.com 
> <mailto:docfaraday at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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 Campen
>
>     On Jan 4, 2014 5:47 PM, "Joegen Baclor" <jbaclor at ezuce.com
>     <mailto:jbaclor at ezuce.com>> wrote:
>
>         On 01/05/2014 12:24 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
>             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.
>
>
>         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.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     resiprocate-devel mailing list
>     resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
>     <mailto:resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org>
>     https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20140105/4a1b003b/attachment.htm>