Hi Roger and all, On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:25 PM Roger Bivand <roger.biv...@nhh.no> wrote:
> In so far as geos-config and geos.pc are generated in forms that autotools > can use (R packages use autotools to configure the use of external > libraries), the main problem is simply that I don't use Cmake, and have > never felt confident when obliged to use it. Unless forced, I really > prefer not to have to, and as I retire soon, I think I shouldn't begin > life as a pensioner by having to learn enough Cmake to be able to build > GEOS (nothing else I build regularly uses Cmake). > > Probably part of the problem is the ./autogen.sh step, which most other > libraries do not impose, however, the RFC does not mention this. > > My feeling is that my interest in tracking developments in GEOS (on behalf > of the R spatial cluster of packages, about 950 at last count) before a > release process is triggered will weaken sharply if I have to learn Cmake, > used for nothing else. > > The RFC mentions the preferences of commmitters; this is wrong-headed, > because the actually useful feedback comes from those in R/Python/etc. who > may be able to find regressions, but who will stop testing before release > if building from the repo or from source in general gets harder. Then you > risk making releases which cause havoc downstream, because you are making > it harder for people like me to build from source. What the committers > prefer will decide this, but it isn't wise. > > Roger > I can't speak for any other downstream projects or packagers, but the Shapely project won't be terribly inconvenienced by a complete switch to Cmake. -- Sean Gillies
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
