On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Piotr Dobrogost <pd_at_curlpp.org> wrote:
> Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Piotr Dobrogost wrote:
>>
>>> 1. auto* tools for Linux (already)
>>> 2. CMake for Windows (and Mac?)
>>> 3. hand written nmake makefiles for VC as well?
>>
>> I say yes.
>>
>> While 2) could theoretically replace both 1) and 3) I think we need to
>> maintain them until that point in the future has been reached and then
>> and only then can we start to consider and discuss abandoning 1, 3 or both.
>
> I'm a little surprised. You really think that's possible to use CMake
> also for Linux? Don't take me wrong; having one build system for all
> platforms would be great but I thought Linux users are so used to auto*
> tools that would be hard to change build system on this platform.

autotools are nice for the end user on Linux because you don't need to
install anything extra. Although it's probably the most common build
system on Linux it is by no means the only one.

I would not mind switching to cmake for building libcurl as long as it
still allowed me to cross-compile for Windows using mingw32.

Personally I don't care if you keep the existing nmake makefiles on
Windows or change to cmake or something else, since I am not likely to
use either, but I think that trying to get Windows users to install
MSYS in order to use the autotools on Windows is silly. It seems like
way too much effort just to build libcurl, whereas running "apt-get
install cmake" on Debian/Ubuntu is easy (although I wonder why cmake
is so big. It sort of seems like there is something wrong when your
build system is an order of magnitude bigger than the thing you're
building.)

-- 
Michael Wood <esiotrot_at_gmail.com>