Re: [libmicrohttpd] Draft of CMake build script

[Evgeny Grin]

On 20.07.2017 10:22, Štefan Bellus wrote:
> Sorry That I do no reply on mails, but I did not received any even if I
> am subscribed.
> I only noticed your reply in archive.

Try to check "spam".

>> By using CMake we could get rid of MSVC projects, but maintaining
> CMake is way harder then MSVC project in current state
> 
> Yes. The benefit will be achieved only if you  use only CMake. No
> autotools, MSVC projects.
> I convert the autotools to CMake to check if possible to replace it with
> CMake. 
> I found out that it is possible. It take me 2 days to convert it. But it
> not waste of time. I learn how to configure sources in CMake and I learn
> also how autotools configure sources.

I suggest you to put your result to some public repo. May be others will
find your CMake setup useful.

>> What about meson?
> 
> It is cool. The syntax is nice. They keep the idea of describing the
> build in general language and
> let the back-end (CMake or meson) to generate specific commands for
> underlying build systems.
> The syntax of this general language is much better in meson.
> I votes for meson :)
> I am little bit skeptic because more and more people start to use CMake
> nowadays. But meson is written in python and a lot of more people can
> use python as C/CPP (CMake is written in C/CPP) and contribute to meson.
> I guess if meson also introduce some package manager for C (something
> like Java maven repositories or C# Nuget) they will win.
> 
> I am a maintainer of project that depends on your library. I would love
> if you can provide same build system on all platforms. It really make
> thinks easier.

As I said, you can try to maintain your CMake configuration. If there
will be mass demand for CMake, we could come back to this question.


-- 
Best Wishes,
Evgeny Grin

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature