[gdal-dev] RFC 84: Migrating build systems to CMake

[Paul Harwood]

I don't have a position - but I do think the RFC should mention which
solution it is proposing.

On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 14:04, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
wrote:

> Paul,
>
> that's a legitimate question indeed. There have indeed been discussions
> among devs if bindings would not better leave outside of the GDAL
> repository and have their own independent lives. That would conceivably be
> doable for the Java or CSharp bindings. More tricky for the Python bindings
> since we need them for the regression test suite.
>
> Adopting a new build system is indeed the opportunity to raise several
> questions about the existing structure (folder organization, etc), but I'm
> afraid that if we try to change too many things at a times, this increases
> the risk of failure (or at least the time to achieve the result). My own
> position would be, at least in the scope of this RFC, to keep the bindings
> in the repo (excluding the Perl ones that will be removed in GDAL 3.5, in
> favor of the out-of-tree Perl FFI bindings) and build them through GDAL's
> main CMake.  CMake4GDAL has already support for that:
> https://github.com/miurahr/cmake4gdal/tree/master/cmakelists/gdal/swig
>
> Even
> Le 04/10/2021 à 14:41, Paul Harwood a écrit :
>
> I am not sure if I should be posting this here or on the bug - so I am
> starting here.
>
> The RFC does not mention (either positively or negatively) the SWIG
> bindings.
>
> Just for the avoidance of doubt :
>
> - It should probably be made clear in the doc if the SWIG bindings are to
> be included in the CMAKE build process, and
>
> - I ask the question, in all innocence and without any prejudice on my
> behalf or even idea of what the answer would be, since if there were to be
> a better way of organising things then a major refactor of the build
> process would be the correct time to implement it.
>
> Paul
>
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 12:49, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please find at https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/4590 a RFC that
>> proposes:
>>
>> - to develop a CMake build system, officially integrated in the source
>> tree.
>>
>> - and remove the current GNU makefiles and nmake build systems, when the
>> CMake build system has matured enough and reached feature parity.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Een
>>
>> --
>> http://www.spatialys.com
>> My software is free, but my time generally not.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gdal-dev mailing list
>> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>>
> -- http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20211004/a4ccf5ac/attachment.html>