Re: Heads up: CMake build system for libobjc

[David Chisnall]

On 14 Dec 2012, at 13:18, Ivan Vučica wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM, David Chisnall <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I do not wish to have extra parallel build systems maintained by other 
>> people in the tree, because that has caused confusion in the past both among 
>> packagers and among people building from source.  I want to make life easy 
>> for building packages, and CMake does this: it exports the configurable 
>> options in a way that is easy to parse and package managers already have a 
>> lot of infrastructure for dealing with CMake from packaging KDE and other 
>> things that use it.
> 
> How about moving it to "unmaintained/" or "unsupported/" and leaving a README 
> that documents them as such -- thus preventing people from confusing them for 
> something that's actively supported? They may still be a neat way to 
> bootstrap the system on some of the platforms while using a great runtime 
> instead of a good runtime.

That's possible.  Users would have to copy the [GNU]Makefile out of 
unsupported/, but I don't mind leaving them in svn if that would be helpful.  

One of the advantages of CMake is that cross-building is now trivial (this was 
one of my motivations, as I'm doing quite a bit of work on ARM and MIPS 
platforms these days and want to be able to cross-compile more easily - 
cross-building GNUstep is very hard currently), so if you are bringing up a new 
platform then this is likely to be easier than using the Makefile.

> Just throwing an idea. All the work on libobjc2 is, of course, already 
> greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

David

-- Sent from my PDP-11