Francesco Montorsi wrote: > Hi Klaas and all, > > now that wxpresets have been finally patched I could resume my work > on wxArt2D bakefiles and update them to that latest version.
That would be great, in the current state it is confusing. > > However before doing this not-so-easy-and-short work I wonder: does it > makes sense to do it? Well?? > > wxArt2D already has a working cmake build system and AFAIK that will > remain in place even if bakefile build system is correctly updated and > results perfectly working, right? I am affraid yes. Unless of course the bakefile way is so much better/easier etc. > > Two build systems for the same things are going to be a problem for > various reasons: > > 1) users may be confused > 2) every build change has to be done twice and in two different ways > (one in cmake syntax, one in bakefile syntax) Right. > > In general, having two build systems mean much more maintainance work. > Is it worth the effort? It would be a nice test case and an example for me and others i think. I think you agree that although you/we more or less started with wxArt2D, the others (wxLua and wxStedit etc.) were maybe even more important. Just because of the fact that you have solved all this bakefile stuff in a standard way, the detection with Cmake became very easy. If wxPM and all wxCode stuff is organized this way, or even using Cmake for some, it all has become easy because things are organized. So for me it starts to look like bakefile and Cmake can used in a mixed configuration of packages without much problem. > > The more I think to it, the more I'm convinced wxArt2D should stick > either with bakefile or cmake, not both. I that case i would stick with Cmake, because i think it is more flexible, and i don't have the time to understand bakefile fully. > > Thoughts? If with not to much effort you can make the thing work again with bakefile( not that much did change ), it would improve the current situation. And i am curious how it would work out after all the changes to bakefile :-) And if bakefile really takes of now with wxCode, it might be possible to move/make some modules in wxArt2D in the same manner as in wxCode. Several modules in wxArt2D can be usefull without anything else (docview), but sofar i have not managed to make them really available as seperate packages. I already seperated the samples to be outside of all modules, that was a first step. The next step would be to organize the modules in such a way that they could be used as wxPM packages if wanted. But i have to agree with your remarks on having two systems, delivering and doing almost the same, is a waste of maintenance time. And this makefiles/configure already takes far to much time, which i prefer to spend on programming. So Francesco its up to you. If you think it is better to spend your precious time, improving wxCode and wxLua and what not, i am all with you. Only removing all bakefile stuff in wxArt2D hurts a bit, even if the arguments point to that. Klaas -- Unclassified ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wxart2d-users_dev mailing list Wxart2d-users_dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxart2d-users_dev
