Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> writes: > I feel like there is an answer somewhere out there that a NetBSD > expert could find and teach us, and I'd rather not bend around the > whole setup of things because of a fairly niche platform issue. People
Maybe, and I'm working on that. So far, it doesn't seem like NetBSD itself as building into a different prefix with a packaging system, on a system that expects to use RPATH. So far it feels to me like the cmake setup is in general unsound; nobody has been able to point out a mechanism by which it is supposed to do testing right. I've tried to read about this and it seems both really complicated and there seems to be a notion that package authors are supposed to put a lot of complicated stuff in cmakefiles to manage handling of rpath in lots of different enviroments, instead of this being something that cmake provides. I know I've long not been a fan of cmake (and people on the lists know that too), but people keep telling me that it's better and that it does everything autoconf does, and I feel like I often run into regressions. > can still *use* GEOS pretty easily on NetBSD > (build/install/forget). The only thing they cannot easily do is run > tests, which is inconvenient to a very small population, which I > understand includes you but I hope you'll be OK with us continuing > down the release path nonetheless. Formally, I'm not ok with it as I keep hearing that moving from autoconf to cmake doesn't involve regressions, so I don't think there should be regressions. Practically, I have limited energy and won't take it personally. For now, I'm trying to understand better, as I have to deal with cmake in a number of projects. I am going to try to actually read the cmakefiles....
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
