On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 15:36 +0000, Fraser Adams wrote: > Hi Alan, > Personally I'd rather cmake was given the heave ho ;-> > > for all of it's pain automake is something of a defacto standard for a > ton of projects.
cmake is also a de facto standard (just for a different - albeit smaller - set of projects) > > Re "Anyone know of specific issues that need to be addressed in cmake?" > yeah, I don't have cmake installed :-D sorry. I'm just messing. The tests are not at parity, autotools "make check" has quite a lot more tests wired in than cmake "make test". > > Seriously though I've just reached a point with 0.20 where I didn't have > to hack around with things to get Qpid to compile on my Ubuntu box, so > if I'm honest I'm a little disinclined to change something that finally > works to have things potentially break more again. TBH, you shouldn't have to 'hack around' in either case, you just install the prerequisites and compile. Substitute cmake for autoconf/automake/libtool and you are prtty much done. The actual piece of work here is to rework the README and INSTALL files to reflect the current build/install process. > > If there are strong feelings that agree with your view to move to cmake > can I suggest that deprecation rather than removal of automake is > announced. I think just deleting it from 0.22 is a bit draconian and I > think we should have a couple of releases at least where both exist but > one is marked deprecated so that users get a chance to flag up where > things break (plenty of users only work off official releases - imagine > their surprise if they are forced to use cmake and either they don't > have cmake installed or the cmake breaks for them). > > I'm clearly biased 'cause I haven't used cmake, but I'm very anti just > deleting the automake build without a period of it being properly > deprecated. As Steve said I think the autoconf tool chain has been deprecated so long that we've forgotten that we did it! My guess is something like 3 years. We've very clearly demonstrated that without this sort of ultimatum other things just remain more important. > > All that said I do have sympathy with the view that having two build > systems is probably not ideal. > > Oh and to follow on a thread that was started a little while back by > Gordon I *really* think that this proposal should be flagged up on the > qpid users mailing list too!! This seems sensible, although it does raise the question of what is 'dev' about this list if the choice of build system is a 'user' issue! Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
