dead code in build.sh?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:40:19AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:17:51 -0600, Matt Dew <matt at osource.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Would I be burned in effigy if I asked about:
> >
> > Yes.
> 
> Sweet.  bring on the pitchforks.
> >
> >> 1) just moving the build system away from autotools to cmake
> >
> > cmake isn't nearly as flexible as autotools, and requires that cmake be
> > present on the build system to build tarballs. Plus, it doesn't reduce
> > the steps needed to build the system, just (purports) to make the
> > maintenance of the build system easier.
> 
> Is all that flexibility needed?  Does it get used?  every package
> checks for  things like 'size_t supported...yes'  and 'max length of
> gcc command line parameters....65535'.   Are these things still
> needed?
> Anyone used cmake,  can you comment on this one?
>...

That's not a new discussion, and it's leading nowhere.

Many people don't love the autotools, but:
- they do work and
- switching to anything else would be a lot of work and
- some posts on a mailing list will not change anything.

Open Source Software development does *not* work as follows:
- Hundreds of developers are just waiting to hear your great ideas
  and are glad to implement them.

Open Source Software development does work as follows:
- *You* create patches for the switch to cmake (or whatever you like).
- *You* submit your patches and tell what great advantages they bring.
- *You* address problems with them raised by other people.
- Your patches get applied.

> Matt

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed