On 5/11/2019 8:36 AM, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote:
Yes it is needed. Nobody wants to remove it from the book. But if a package *can* be built with autotools or meson, why should we build it with cmake and introduce a hard dependency?
This deserves a bit more consideration. What are the devs doing with this package? ISTR that the devs made a conscious choice to move to cmake. I do not know whether that means that autotools support is going away (admittedly, many times it does). OTOH, as long as autotools support is still current, then why not reduce the dependencies?IMO, the change, or more importantly, the reason for the change, is sound - the only issue here is that it likely should have been discussed before hand to avoid the initial reaction that prompted this thread. Generally speaking, you should prefer to use the newer build tools, if possible, as they are likely the more supported/current variant, but this is the outlier. A comment in the source with rationale is a good idea here.
--DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
