[nanomsg] Re: Release packaging and build systems
- From: Gonzalo Diethelm <gonzalo.diethelm@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:44:49 -0400
+1 for getting rid of the compat mode.
+1 for a single unified build system, but that seems to be a pipe dream...
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
Gonzalo Diethelm
gonzalo.diethelm@xxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
