[nanomsg] Re: Release packaging and build systems

  • From: luca barbato <luca.barbato@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, luca barbato <luca.barbato@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:11:39 +0200

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Martin Lucina <martin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx said:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Thougts anyone? Arguments for keeping the 0MQ compatibility library in
>> > place?
>>
>> I think removing the compatibility library would be fine, for the
>> reasons you state.
>
> +1
>
> Just curious, what's the motivation behind reintroducing autoconf?
>
> Has CMake not lived up to its major promise which (AFAIK) is a unified
> build system for Windows and POSIX?

CMake support for cross-compilation is severely lacking in usability
and I wanted to use nanomsg Gentoo even when crossdev is involved.
Plus the fact that having a large C++ dependency on a pure C library
feels bad. (To remind people, autotools generated distributions do not
require autotools, you are fine with bash an make, cmake distributions
do require cmake)

lu

Other related posts: