| 1 |
On 21.7.2010 13.34, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/20/2010 05:03 PM, Nathan Eloe wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'm fine with using autotools. I hadn't made the final decision yet (I |
| 4 |
>> was going to work on the build system tomorrow), so with this |
| 5 |
>> recommendation I will use that instead of cmake. I haven't used either |
| 6 |
>> extensively (I know enough about both to do something very simple with |
| 7 |
>> either), so changing the build system won't throw me off very much. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Staying with straight C is not something I am as comfortable with. I've |
| 10 |
>> talked with my mentor about it, and we've decided that since the GCC |
| 11 |
>> does allow C++, it's a mature enough language to use. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The problem is that it isn't. the gcc move to C++ might straight the |
| 14 |
> things out in the long term. in the middle one I'd be quite wary of the |
| 15 |
> outcome. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We prefer developer productivity over issues that might not even exist. |
| 19 |
The project will not be mature enough to be used as the default by |
| 20 |
Portage any time soon so the current way of doing this will stick |
| 21 |
around. The current way could also be kept as a fallback for problematic |
| 22 |
upgrades. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
Petteri |
Archives