+1 from me I am pretty sure this wont interfere with the IP Clearance that is left and even there, getting us less dependent on Dmake is good.
Pedro. --- On Fri, 11/25/11, Ariel Constenla-Haile <[email protected]> wrote: ... > Hi Pedro, * > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:59:38PM -0800, Pedro Giffuni > wrote: > > Hi; > > > > It looks like the IP Clearance stuff is under > > control so I would like to move completely to > > a development branch if you guys create it. > > > > I also suspect the FreeBSD port will need > > adjustments for the new gnumake stuff. > > I have finished building on Fedora 16 64 bits, and fixing > some issues. > I started building on WinXP (a VM, so it takes 5 hrs). > > I'm not sure if the gnumake4 integration should be moved to > a feature > branch. It is highly probable that it won't introduce any > regression on > the core functionality, as most changes are made to > Makefiles, and in > the cases where the source code was, it only had to do with > fixing the > exported symbols, among other little changes; there are no > core new > features, it is only the build system. > > IMO everybody will benefit from its integration in the > trunk, so I'd > vote for integrating this into trunk. > Of course, it is highly probable that our builds will > brake, but it can > be fixed soon, while people is building. > > On the other hand, having this in a feature branch will > mean more work > with merging the trunk changesets (I already had to do this > with the > cppunit removal, which by the way would have been more > simple and clean > with the gnumake4 changes). > > What do you guys think? > > Regards > -- > Ariel Constenla-Haile > La Plata, Argentina >
