On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 2:12 AM Brennan Ashton wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023, 3:23 PM Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > I am thinking about this. "If it works don't fix it" comes to my mind. > > Current build system is amazingly simple coherent and fast. Building > > firmware takes 17 seconds. Why change it? > > Such change will flip everything upside down. Adds lots of work and > > even more possible problems. > > What would be the real benefit? > > How would it improve that 17 seconds? > > I think the practical presentation and comparison of results (i.e. ide > > integration, ci automation) along with numbers (i.e. build time) needs > > to take place before making any decisions. > > I very much disagree. The current build system is much slower with a ton of > boilerplate that is difficult to maintain and make cross platform. Are we > building an RTOS or reinventing the modern build tools? > > Infact I have pull requests unmerged because the hacks we have in place > break and I have very little interest in tacking on even more hacks when we > could just not worry about it with cmake. > > I would encourage those that thing this complicates things to actually look > at the pull requests for cmake and see how much cleaner it is.
Thanks Brennan, this is a solid pro for cmake, we need to create detailed list pros and cons, verify in practice, to get better proof based RFC analysis. I can see that this decision will be quite controversial and it cannot lead to any more split in the community. I have created a simple page at CWIKI with an initial list of impacts, pros, cons. Please update folks. I have updated Proposals name to NuttX RFC Proposals. Big changes like that can be processed that way as RFC and documented on cwiki. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/NuttX+RFC+0004%3A+Add+CMake+build+system -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
