Hi Mateusz,
If really "there is no plan or even will for such switch in GDAL" I
think nothing to discuss here.
The ticket #7080 should be closed and let's continue to live with
current developing approach.
Which solution, my or Hiroshi, will more popular show the time.
Best regards,
Dmitry
30.10.17 12:24, Mateusz Loskot пишет:
On 30 October 2017 at 10:06, Dmitry Baryshnikov <bishop....@gmail.com> wrote:
Also there is one big problem for me in #7080 - this is third build system
additionally to GNUMakefile, makefile.vc. And now CMakeLists.txt must be
supported too. Three files which must be synced each other with and taking
into consideration the upper scripts, it's awful!
Dmitry,
This issue is orthogonal to actual CMake challenge.
If core developers of a project X do not agree to switch to a new
build configuration Y,
then any initiative to develop setup for Y will live in a side car.
AFAIU, there is no plan or even will for such switch in GDAL.
Similar situation is with GEOS.
Finally, developing configuration for Y build system by completely
revolutionising structure of project X is a terrible thing to do in terms
of potential switch to Y. IOW, the bigger and deeper a revolution, the less
chance to get acceptance by core developers, also psychologically.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
