<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Paul,</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/miurahr/cmake4gdal/tree/master/cmakelists/gdal/swig">https://github.com/miurahr/cmake4gdal/tree/master/cmakelists/gdal/swig</a><br>
</p>
<p>Even<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 04/10/2021 à 14:41, Paul Harwood a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAE8nN5P8WSbijsmHvxwHdGMNY0s-ZiQxQgSuXsZ3Bv38bVVKhw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I am not sure if I should be posting this here or
on the bug - so I am starting here.<br>
<br>
The RFC does not mention (either positively or negatively) the
SWIG bindings.<br>
<br>
Just for the avoidance of doubt :
<div><br>
- It should probably be made clear in the doc if the SWIG
bindings are to be included in the CMAKE build process, and </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Paul</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 4 Oct 2021 at 12:49,
Even Rouault <<a href="mailto:even.rouault@spatialys.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">even.rouault@spatialys.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Please find at <a
href="https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/4590"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/4590</a>
a RFC that proposes:<br>
<br>
- to develop a CMake build system, officially integrated in
the source tree.<br>
<br>
- and remove the current GNU makefiles and nmake build
systems, when the <br>
CMake build system has matured enough and reached feature
parity.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Een<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href="http://www.spatialys.com" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.spatialys.com</a><br>
My software is free, but my time generally not.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gdal-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.spatialys.com">http://www.spatialys.com</a>
My software is free, but my time generally not.</pre>
</body>
</html>