dead code in build.sh?

[Matt Dew]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk at stusta.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:32:26AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Adrian Bunk <bunk at stusta.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:40:19AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:17:51 -0600, Matt Dew <matt at osource.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Would I be burned in effigy if I asked about:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes.
>> >>
>> >> Sweet.  bring on the pitchforks.
>> >> >
>> >> >> 1) just moving the build system away from autotools to cmake
>> >> >
>> >> > cmake isn't nearly as flexible as autotools, and requires that cmake be
>> >> > present on the build system to build tarballs. Plus, it doesn't reduce
>> >> > the steps needed to build the system, just (purports) to make the
>> >> > maintenance of the build system easier.
>> >>
>> >> Is all that flexibility needed?  Does it get used?  every package
>> >> checks for  things like 'size_t supported...yes'  and 'max length of
>> >> gcc command line parameters....65535'.   Are these things still
>> >> needed?
>> >> Anyone used cmake,  can you comment on this one?
>> >>...
>> >
>> > That's not a new discussion, and it's leading nowhere.
>>
>> It looks like a new discussion to me. I've not seen this topic on the
>> ML anywhere. If it's there, please point me in that direction.
>
> I'm not sure about this mailing list, but in the open source world it is
> a common discussion.
>
>> > Many people don't love the autotools, but:
>> > - they do work and
>> > - switching to anything else would be a lot of work and
>> > - some posts on a mailing list will not change anything.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Open Source Software development does *not* work as follows:
>> > - Hundreds of developers are just waiting to hear your great ideas
>> >  and are glad to implement them.
>> >
>> > Open Source Software development does work as follows:
>> > - *You* create patches for the switch to cmake (or whatever you like).
>> > - *You* submit your patches and tell what great advantages they bring.
>> > - *You* address problems with them raised by other people.
>> > - Your patches get applied.
>>
>> Perhaps worded poorly...
>> I'm not looking for others to do the work.  If anyone wants to great,
>> but it's not expected and is not the point of this question.   The
>> purpose is to see if anyone has already looked into this and if they
>> have what did they come up with.   Besides, I've got enough work on my
>> hands with the documentation.
>
> Despite opposite claims, autotools are doing a good job at their task.
>
> Any switch of the build system would be a huge amount of work, and when
> Mikhail asked you about the benefits of switching to cmake you didn't
> even bother to answer.

Agreed. It's huge work, that's why I'm asking the question.

Also, I wouldn't put it as 'didn't even bother to answer'.  Rather I
was (and still am) looking into it and wanted to give an intelligent
answer to his question.

Matt