Den tors 7 maj 2026 kl 22:26 skrev Branko Čibej <[email protected]>: > > On 7. 5. 26 22:21, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 7. 5. 26 20:52, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > > Den ons 6 maj 2026 kl 09:53 skrev Branko Čibej <[email protected]>: > > On 6. 5. 26 08:58, Timofei Zhakov wrote: > > The cmake build currently requires a generated by gen-make.py script > file where all the targets are defined. I think we might now consider > moving towards more conventional design where those are hand written > and directly. > > Why is this helpful? As the build configuration grows, we get more > special cases that are much easier to express in cmake directly. > > However, this decision would also mean supporting two lists of targets > at once (the build.conf and cmake) that might cause the build to > differ. I believe cmake might replace vcnet generator but I'm certain > that we would still maintain autoconf for a long while. > > > We will maintain the Autotools build for quite a bit longer than a long > while, IMO. > > We might instead hand-write the complex parts (like for example swig > binding) in cmake directly but keep targets.cmake design for libs, > tools, and tests. > > > We want one place that defines dependencies, regardless of which build system > is used. Anything else will quickly go out of sync. > > Alternatively, this would probably be helpful to have targets.cmake > tracked in the repository. This way it's probably more convenient for > users to compile the trunk. But also every time a C file is created or > either build.conf or build/generator/gen_cmake.py is changed, one > should rerun gen-make before committing. On the other hand, if an > unintentional change in targets.cmake is accidentally made, we have an > easy way to spot why and when it happens. > > What do you think? > > > We shouldn't commit targets.cmake for the same reasons we don't commit > build-outputs.mk: they're generated files and except in very limited cases, > we don't commit those. > > -- Brane > > (GMail doesn't seem to understand the quoting used by Brane's MUA. > Thus it is difficult to discern which parts above are written by > Timofei and which are written by Brane. https://lists.apache.org seems > to do the right thing). > > > Sorry about that ... GMail doesn't understand a whole lot of standard things > about e-mail, such as proper threading and quoting and honouring In-Reply-To > headers – PonyMail gets that horribly wrong, too. But in this case, it's not > completely wrong? See the attached screenshot of what I see in GMail. > > > > If course, it is deficient compared to what I see in Thunderbird. :)
We agree. But it is also quite convenient. Sorry... /Daniel > > > Sadly enough, though, the nested quoting was lost in your reply. Just another > reason why I don't use the GMail app or webapp to write mail... > > -- Brane > >
