PROPOSAL: Use Cmake as the build system for Samba

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 19:37 -0500, simo wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 01:29 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 17:02 -0500, simo wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 08:50 +1100, tridge at samba.org wrote:
> > > > Hi Simo,
> > > > 
> > > >  > As you say it is nothing that we haven't done or keep doing, but
> > > >  > certainly if I should judge on this criteria I'd definitely choose CMake
> > > >  > over python any day.
> > > > 
> > > > It is not cmake or python. It is cmake _and_ python. By using cmake we
> > > > don't lose the need for python in samba4. 
> > > > 
> > > > Having a dependence on one external tool doesn't justify adding
> > > > another. The point of using a python based build tool is that it adds
> > > > no additional pain.
> > > 
> > > For samba3 it is a choice between cmake or python afaik.
> > The python we rely on in Samba (2.4) was released in 2004. All it
> > requires to build is a C compiler and libc. SCons and waf both support
> > Python 2.4 and higher.
> > 
> > CMake requires C++ and the CMake that Andreas' current work is based on
> > was released in 2008. 
> > 
> > Why is Python more pain ?
> 
> Sorry Jelmer,
> I don't see were anyone said anything about more pain.
I think I might've misunderstood. From your earlier email, what did you
refer to by:

"As you say it is nothing that we haven't done or keep doing, but
certainly if I should judge on this criteria I'd definitely choose CMake
over python any day."

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20100219/361878d7/attachment.pgp>