Hello,
Sorry if my reply seemed heavy handed, but let's try and look at
this logically. Here is my reason for such a view regarding the
changes.
To automate an action in the build process, in my mind would fall in
the category of enhancement. It is not a necessary change to make,
its not adding functionality and certainly not fixing an issue.
Being able to build liblouisutdml is a critical feature and thus
breaking the build system is a major issue. Yes we have two build
processes and these must respect each other, the GNU make system
must not break the VC build and equally the VC build system must not
break the GNU make system.
My view was that the damage caused was significantly greater than
the benefit gained by these changes.
If the need for these changes were greater (IE.fix to a critical
issue) then I may be more inclined to seek to modify the VC build
system to work with these. However due to the enhancement status of
these changes I feel the responsibility is more on the person
providing the changes to ensure it does not break anything, or
modify both build systems to work with the changes.
This is at least the case for the default branch, if you were to do
such changes on a separate branch then people would have time to
look at fixing the VC build system (if interested) whilst users such
as Vic could still get working code.
This is an issue with having two build systems and also one of those
build systems being something of no interest to me. I have suggested
in the past we look at using a build system which could work on all
platforms (eg. scons or cmake), however this recieved comments
opposing it. Thus if we are going to stick with two build systems we
must all respect the other build system and at least not break it,
if not fixing it when we want to make a more major change.
If you really feel that is something which will cause conflict and
thus be unworkable, then may be it is time for me to explore the
other build systems (eg. scons or cmake) and use something where I
do not rely on others to fix the build process.
May be I am just seeing the grass being greener on the other side,
but its certainly not looking good here. May be I need to experience
using one of the other systems before I can fully appreciate the
benefits and disadvantages of those.
Michael Whapples
On 19/06/2014 16:19, Christian Egli wrote:
On 06/19/2014 04:47 PM, Michael Whapples (Redacted sender
mwhapples@xxxxxxx for DMARC) wrote:
I have reverted those breaking changes, try now.
Michael I am really ticked off at the way this is handled.
Look I'm doing you guys a service by fixing the build system so
that all the stuff that needs to be built is automatically built.
Now as you point out the vc build is basically a parallel build
system to the autotools one and needs fixing every time anything
in the build system changes. So if I fix the build system that
doesn't mean that I also have to fix the vc build scripts. That is
up to the people that love to build with vc. They are free to use
the autotools.
VC is the preferred build tool on Windows, so we cannot have GNU
make only solutions. Christian please find a fix or this will
have to be reverted.
Maybe I'm having a bad day but this is really rubbing me the wrong
way. This is not how you treat contributors. This is not what I
call collaboration. Please revert the revert and then we can work
together to solve this properly.
Thanks
Christian
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
