We want as few dependencies as possible.
CMake alone is enough trouble for our users. We don't want to burden them with 
other stuff.

On 2018/03/06 17:21:15, kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> 

Reply via email to