On 23/07/13 11:11, luca barbato wrote:
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)
I feel that we've hit the same problem as with ZeroMQ.Back then there was autotools build system, which didn't offer a way to build the library on Windows. So we had to have separate MSVC projects.
Now it's CMake build system which works on Windows, but lacks in cross-compiling support.
Either way there have to be 2 build systems :(Btw, good point about the dependency on CMake. It implies, AFAICS, that we should use autotools to create release packages rather than CMake.
Martin