Re: Whither USE_CMAKE?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%mnx.io@localhost> writes:

> * On 2024-05-22 at 11:51 BST, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
>
>
> One immediate inconvenience with this is that I have to add (and
> maintain) identical code in both:
>
>   mk/configure/cmake.mk
>   devel/cmake/build.mk
>
> My understanding is that the former (USE_CMAKE) is being phased out,
> but after 2 years we're at:
>
>   USE_CMAKE:	419
>   build.mk:	308
>
> Should I continue adding to both, or shall we use it as a gentle
> prodding stick for the remaining packages to be migrated over to
> build.mk?

While there is this phase out idea, I'm not sure we've ever said that
USE_CMAKE is deprecated.

We haven't really had a lot of list discussion, and I'm unaware of
guidance for how to convert.  It may be as simple as removing USE_CMAKE
(and dropping from USE_TOOLS) and adding devel/cmake/build.mk.  But
cmake is very complicated to start with, more so than I feel I can
reasonably spend time to understand, and my impression is that many
people have only learned enough about it to cope with packaging.

Currently, the guide describes cmake/build.mk and doesn't mention
USE_CMAKE.   The cmake/build.mk file itself doesn't describe migration.
The USE_CMAKE files don't hint that they are deprecated. 

Therefore I think it would be good if build.mk had a "how to convert"
section, and I suspect it actually is pretty easy, unless the package
doesn't work with the new way.   We could add a warning to USE_CMAKE,
but I think that's only reasonable after this is written conversion
guidance in tree.


Until then, I'd say USE_CMAKE is more or less deprecated but still in
very signficant use, so I think we should make improvements there too.
I'm guessing that's faster than long discussions :-)