[nanomsg] Re: started on CMake unification
- From: Sergei Nikulov <sergey.nikulov@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:35:09 +0300
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.
--
Best Regards,
Sergei Nikulov
Other related posts:
