Hi, On Tuesday 25 August 2015 11:00:35 Bård Skaflestad wrote: > On 25/08/15 10:52, Markus Blatt wrote: > > [Snip background] > > > I am wondering whether we should stop supporting autotools for > > downstream modules and stop creating *.la files. (I guess this is > > untested in any case). This means enforcing dune >=2.3 which comes > > with CMake. > > I have no particular preference for Autotools, so I guess we at least > have to take convenience and practicality into account. Can OPM users > (on Linux) *easily* obtain pre-built packages for Dune 2.3 on their > distributions? What is the cost/benefit ratio to the OPM project to > continue supporting 2.2.x? How far away is Dune 2.4 and do we have a > reasonable upgrade path to that?
In my opinion, Dune 2.2 support should be dropped because Dune 2.3 has been
around since 1.5 years and I consider it unlikely that anyone wants to use OPM
2015.10 with a Dune version from mid-2012...
Also, I have a slightly off-topic question, but since this thread is about
autotools and cmake it may fit anyway: the last time I tried to mix the Dune
master's CMake build system with the OPM one, dunecontrol badly fell on its
nose (i.e., you have to set USE_CMAKE=no in your .opts file). since IIRC Dune
decided to remove their autotools system for 2.4+1, I'd like to inquire what
the current plans for OPM are in this regard?
cheers
Andreas
--
You may now understand why I made a new jug of coffee. I had torture-tested
this with fairly much every pathology I could think of. And you've managed to
break it with the *default* case. Congratulations. You just made me cry.
-- David Woodhouse
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
