[nanomsg] Re: started on CMake unification
- From: Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 06:38:43 -0500
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Sergei Nikulov
<sergey.nikulov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> 2015-03-24 9:44 GMT+03:00 Alexander Williams <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> Hi Garrett,
>>
>> My current FFI-bindings (PicoLisp) contain a very simple script for users
>> to build the nanomsg shared library. It's along the lines of: ./configure
>> --enable-shared && make;
>>
>> Switching to CMake would require them to either install cmake or obtain a
>> pre-built shared lib. I understand CMake is much better for developer
>> sanity, but for end-users it's not. I'm not certain if switching would be a
>> good idea if we burdened them with this additional requirement.
>>
>> In fact, the main reason I selected nanomsg was due to the ease and
>> simplicity of building the shared library. CMake would cancel that primary
>> requirement.
>>
>> Personally I don't like the idea.
>
>
> I see no reasons to keep them both in project.
> Of course it can be challenging to keep them in sync, but all doable with
> some well defined rules.
Wouldn't end users be more interested in deployed packages anyway? Of
course that's likely to be a whole other can of works due to varied
underlying dependencies, so hence the ability to build on own systems.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Sergei Nikulov
Other related posts:
