Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:37:07
Message-Id: assp.0211d24102.2264755.MRRQzGHBHG@wlt
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build by William Hubbs
1 On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 9:23:22 AM EST William Hubbs wrote:
2 > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:22:22AM +0100, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
3 > > I'd recommend to jump a bandwagon and switch to CMake.
4 > >
5 > > Yes, it's ugly in certain areas, has its quirks but whoever switches to it
6 > > ones, never goes back, and not because of technical debt being too big.
7 > >
8 > > Also because I can help with it (and a lot of folks can), while Meson is
9 > > still largely unknown.
10 >
11 > Thanks for the offer, but i have no interest in CMake. I have heard from
12 > multiple sources how difficult it is to work with.
13
14 I did not find CMake difficult to work with at all. I use it for jem[1], a port
15 of java-config to C. Though my main reason for CMake vs Autotools was in things
16 like ability to make a rpm, deb, and tarball easily. Things I did not need to
17 do on Gentoo with an ebuild. Yes that can be done in Autotools, just I found
18 it easier to do via CMake.
19
20 Now CMake does have dependencies, and for that reason I would avoid for
21 openrc. The less dependencies the better. Eventually I may move jem back to
22 Autotools for the same reason. I do use Autotools for asspr[2]. CMake would be
23 overkill for asspr.
24
25 I would experiment with CMake yourself and form your own opinion. I really do
26 not think it is difficult. I have not heard anyone say it was difficult. Just the
27 opposite.
28
29 1. https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/jem
30 2. https://github.com/Obsidian-StudiosInc/asspr
31
32 --
33 William L. Thomson Jr.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature