[nanomsg] Re: Release packaging and build systems
- From: Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:54:12 +0200
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A.) The furthest we can possibly go is maintaining MSVC solution files as we
> did with ZeroMQ. The problem here is twofold. First, MSVC solutions are
> managed via GUI :( Second, every version of MSVC has different solution file
> format, so we would have to maintain multiple versions of the solution
> files.
>
> B.) If that seems excessive we can provide a way to *generate* MSVC solution
> files. That way the Windows developer can learn just the generation part of
> the toolchain and continue with MSVC IDE as normal.
>
> C.) We can be even less forthcoming and drop MSVC support entirely. In such
> case Windows nanomsg developers would have to learn MinGW toolchain. The
> upside would be maintaining just a single build system.
>
> Thoughts anyone?
Seems to me that both A and C suck. So I think I'm with Luca in saying
that it probably makes sense to have both CMake and autotools build
systems and keep them in sync by hand (given the premise that this
shouldn't be too hard).
Maintaining two build systems sucks, but it sucks less than the alternatives.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
Other related posts:
