I am strongly in favor of CMake for GDAL with this RFC. I was slightly approsed in prior proposals for CMake.
Some supporting tidbits: - There is much support in IDEs for CMake - https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/community/-/wikis/doc/Editors - As a maintainer of an out-of-tree bazel based build for GDAL, I think that it's not a good solution for GDAL. bazel is about build speed and simplicity. It makes it hard to have large numbers of selectable options beyond general compiler options. It's also fairly easy to keep my own bazel build. - The more I try to use autoconf, automake, and related, the more frustrated I get with them. - cmake + ninja on machines with larger number of cores is really awesomely fast Having folks working in the core wanting to move to CMake and the PROJ, GEOS, and others switching puts me firmly in support of this RFC. CMake, like every other build system, is definitely weird, but I agree that it's one of the "least weird". I want to say thank you to all the folks who have worked on CMake for GDAL. Taking a quick peek at cmake4gdal, I would suggest that a lot more drivers should be switched from using gdal_format to gdal_optional_format. There are folks (e.g. me!) who prefer to have the bare minimum of drivers built. e.g. one of my builds: gdal_translate --formats | wc -l 21 blaze-bin/third_party/gdal/ogr2ogr --formats | wc -l 20 And really, I should make those smaller. I know that some of the required formats are required mostly for autotest. I'd be be interested in working on getting the minimum footprint down once things are switched to CMake. On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 8:31 AM Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> wrote: > > Le 04/10/2021 à 15:38, Paul Harwood a écrit : > > I don't have a position - but I do think the RFC should mention which > solution it is proposing. > > I've just added one > > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 14:04, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> > wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> that's a legitimate question indeed. There have indeed been discussions >> among devs if bindings would not better leave outside of the GDAL >> repository and have their own independent lives. That would conceivably be >> doable for the Java or CSharp bindings. More tricky for the Python bindings >> since we need them for the regression test suite. >> >> Adopting a new build system is indeed the opportunity to raise several >> questions about the existing structure (folder organization, etc), but I'm >> afraid that if we try to change too many things at a times, this increases >> the risk of failure (or at least the time to achieve the result). My own >> position would be, at least in the scope of this RFC, to keep the bindings >> in the repo (excluding the Perl ones that will be removed in GDAL 3.5, in >> favor of the out-of-tree Perl FFI bindings) and build them through GDAL's >> main CMake. CMake4GDAL has already support for that: >> https://github.com/miurahr/cmake4gdal/tree/master/cmakelists/gdal/swig >> >> Even >> Le 04/10/2021 à 14:41, Paul Harwood a écrit : >> >> I am not sure if I should be posting this here or on the bug - so I am >> starting here. >> >> The RFC does not mention (either positively or negatively) the SWIG >> bindings. >> >> Just for the avoidance of doubt : >> >> - It should probably be made clear in the doc if the SWIG bindings are to >> be included in the CMAKE build process, and >> >> - I ask the question, in all innocence and without any prejudice on my >> behalf or even idea of what the answer would be, since if there were to be >> a better way of organising things then a major refactor of the build >> process would be the correct time to implement it. >> >> Paul >> >> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 12:49, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please find at https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/4590 a RFC that >>> proposes: >>> >>> - to develop a CMake build system, officially integrated in the source >>> tree. >>> >>> - and remove the current GNU makefiles and nmake build systems, when the >>> CMake build system has matured enough and reached feature parity. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Een >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.spatialys.com >>> My software is free, but my time generally not. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gdal-dev mailing list >>> gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >>> >> -- http://www.spatialys.com >> My software is free, but my time generally not. >> >> -- http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
