On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 22:40 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Zach Welch <z...@superlucidity.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 14:51 -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > >> >> Nice work Zach. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Thanks Dick. But nothing else for me to add? :) > >> > > >> > >> > >> Yes, I would ask that folks *try* out the CMake support. > >> > >> > >> I think they have the potential to help some Windows folks who might > >> get roadblocked at cygwin requirements. > > > > If I can talk you into updating it to matching the new CFLAGS used by > > the autotools, agree to help keep all build scripts in sync, and answer > > questions to help others in the community learn how to do the same, then > > I endorse the addition of your CMake patch as an alternative to the > > autotools-based build system, contingent upon inspection of the final > > version of the patch that you want to have committed. > > > > Does that sound good to everyone? > > There is not a whole lot of enthusiasm in the community for switching > to CMake, even if it is better. There is certainly very little > enthusiasm for maintaining two systems. > > Perhaps this will change, but there are no clear advantages for > all those people out there who are happy with autoconf to learn > CMake.... >
Where did I say switch? No "switch". I do not have a problem with multiple build systems, as long as they can keep out of each others' way. Since our "users" are developers, I think we can safely assume that they will have strong preferences about a build system. I'd put it somewhere below the choice of editors, but it's on all of our mental scorecards. Fair enough? If we can offer both, we should offer a choice. Choice is good when it gives benefits that outweighed the cost of allowing the choice. But my proposed social contract with Dick above puts the onus on his shoulders to continue to maintain CMake support long after it has hit the tree, or to find other maintainers from the community. There should be zero cost to the community that only wants to use autotools, but we would make non-zero number of developers happier and more likely to hack the code. I am an autotools fan, but I believe in freedom of build systems. I can hack CMake too and would be happy to have help mastering it. I hope that such interest flows both ways, as there is little to be gained by choosing one tool and climbing into its ivory tower for all time. As for ongoing maintenance, the community either steps up or doesn't. If the CMake build repeatedly lets down the community in the long run, then *squish* go those bits. But if he will agree here on this list, I doubt he will ever let that happen; if we give him the chance to build a community following, I think all of this will be proven moot. Look at it another way, developer X wants feature Y, submits a patch to add it. The patch adds value for them, doesn't interfere with other parts of the package, and it will make more than a few users happy. I do not believe that "lack of enthusiasm" can stand; please check your reasoning and try your excuse again. :) Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
