At Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:10:59 +0100 (CET), Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
Subject: Re: wm/ctwm without cmake
>
> First, let me say that trying to enforce a policy to bend
> third-party packages away from cmake "against their will" is most
> probably a waste of time, so I'll side with Joerg on this one.
That is not what I was suggesting at all.
The only "policy" would be guidelines for pkgsrc maintainers to
knowingly choose to use an alternative build method (over CMake)
whenever that is possible.
Such possibilities could include:
- whenever the package offers the alternative itself
- whenever someone is able to offer a simple enough alternative that
will work reliably with pkgsrc (e.g. me, with my own forks of
upstream packages :-) )
- whenever the package maintainer has more trouble fixing cmake than
would be the effort of writing a few simple standard makefiles
Ideally I would add the following guideline:
- use or create an alternative build whenever the package clearly has
few if any target-specific configuration options.
This latter case would include packages which are plain straight C
libraries with no configuration needs (e.g. yajl, librsync), as well as
anything else where pkgrsc itself can easily provide any of the
necessary choices without having to run any extra configure scripts.
Personally I would even go so far as to include fixing any trivial
portability problems where compiler-supplied flags will suffice but were
not already used by the package.
For some things, like yajl, it's easier, simpler, faster, and more
satisfying to manually type all the compile and link commands to build
the package than it is to build and install CMake!
--
Greg A. Woods <gwoods%acm.org@localhost>
Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods%robohack.ca@localhost>
Planix, Inc. <woods%planix.com@localhost> Avoncote Farms <woods%avoncote.ca@localhost>
Attachment:
pgpcKYRWjL4ix.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature