Short term solution sounds good to me Chris. Converting the CI should be pretty easy. One thing we should keep in mind is that there's going to be a bunch of doc's we'll have to update.
Warning, slight thread hijack ahead: As a more long term change I was wondering if we had considered using hunter for third party packages? It seems like a good system, and while it likely won't have support for all our projects, we can contribute back support for the ones we care about. For me the primary benefit would be that it would conditionally fetch source at build time based on your cmake configuration. This would mean it could say, detect you want opencv/mp/protobuf (if you're using onnx) and then it'd check out the pinned version we specify and build for your platform. On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here is discussion: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/8702 > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > This was agreed upon some time ago in a github issue thread, unless there > > are new objections to it. > > > > As far as I know, it's just a matter of someone putting in the work to > add > > more functionality to cmake or to fuse the two builds. > > > > One solution for the short term might include having the Makefile launch > > cmake for most of the build and fall back to Makefile for some of the > > remaining stuff, like scalapkg, rpkg, etc. > > > > btw, cmake uses the openmp in 3rdparty > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:51 AM, Pedro Larroy < > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> I would like to raise the issue that maintaining two overlapping build > >> systems is too much overhead. It adds unnecessary complexity and > >> differences on how the project is built. > >> > >> For example, openmp is used differently from CMake and Make, in the > former > >> the one provided by gcc is used and in the later is compiled from the > >> 3rdparty folder. > >> > >> I think this situation is not sustainable for the project, and specially > >> if > >> we add that we want to support compilation and cross compilation on > >> devices. > >> > >> My proposal would be to identify any gaps that are not covered by the > >> CMake > >> build system, cover them and make CMake the single build system for > MXNet, > >> well tested and fully supported. > >> > >> Pedro. > >> > > > > >