PROPOSAL: Use Cmake as the build system for Samba

[simo]

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 01:56 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> 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."

Simply that cmake being a standalone thing, to me looks like a lesser
evil to depend on. I like python, a lot, but I don't like the fast pace
it moves, and the discontinuity between 2.4, 2.6, 3.0 ... just personal
preference on this one, I guess.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>