Hi, On Thursday 21 May 2015 08:54:18 Alf Birger Rustad wrote: > First of all, I also want to thank Joakim for bringing up the discussion > before making changes. My thoughts are as follows: > > Currently my focus is on removing the sibling-build features. > > This was discussed at the OPM meeting, and my recollection from the > discussion on sibling builds is -a majority of developers use the feature > -it does not add significant complexity when determining which > libraries/binaries are actually linked -it is not a significant maintenance > burden to keep > With the conclusion that we keep it.
I remember this discussion a bit differently, but that probably does not matter too much. (as far as I remember it, the conclusion was that we remove sibling builds, but that some "meta-build" tool gets added before this is done.) From my personal perspective, the main benefit of getting rid of the sibling build feature is that -- as far as I can see -- sibling builds make it hard to have a distributed build system, i.e., that every OPM module ships its own build system modules. In turn, I think that this is a strict necessity for the buildsystem to be even considered for external projects to be used. cheers Andreas -- If your text editor can defeat you at chess, it might be a bit overengineered. -- Jon Cruz, reflecting on the power of Emacs.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
