> I'm not sure you realize that what you wrote sounds insensitive and is > bordering ad-hominen. > You could have said that you disagree and that this doesn't match your > experience for example. > Instead you tone devalues the point you're trying to make.
+1 > A) One of the major features of FreeType is that is can be easily built on > many many systems (included embedded ones with weird toolchains), and it's > something I'd like to keep for the core library. > In other words, I really want to keep the ability to compile an official > release of FreeType with "./configure && make". That doesn't mean we have > to use auto-tools or the current Make-based system though. > We may also consider providing CMake scripts to help use of FreeType > releases into CMake-based projects. There is a CMake build file already, it is for building a library and maybe a package only though. Sometimes people try to build a distribution package from it and run into problems... > > B) [...] choosing > a solution that brings joy is more important than something that could > support a team of 50 people working on it, or is industry standard. +1 :) I generally like the idea of having one nice primary build system and supporting bare Makefiles for niche platforms. > so we may consider keeping autotools/libtool as an escape hatch for esoteric > systems that still exist, and use something simpler/better for Linux and OS X? I honestly wonder how many of those esoteric systems are still in use and want to compile git master. > Apart from that, it would be easy to write a script to generate the proper > compilation database Ok :) I just thought it was neat that CMake can generate this automatically during configure and my IDE will just pick it up.