Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-07-03 🗒️ Summary of this message: John Smith ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-07-03
🗒️ Summary of this message: John Smith questions the choice of autotools as the future build system and suggests cmake, but Pieter has no preference as long as it meets certain criteria.
📝 Original message:On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 07:29:04AM +0000, John Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why again did we choose for autotools as future build system instead of
> cmake?
I have no preference for any particular project build system. If a system
* is easy enough to set up (included in standard repositories, eg.)
* allows building of the bitcoin codebase on several linux distro's
* does cross-compilation to windows
* supports osx
* is easy to maintain
* it is not too hard to adapt other GUI's to use it (bitcoin-qt,
maybe others as well, i hear about a cocoabitcoin?)
* gets implemented and tested to support all of the above
.. i have no problem with choosing that system for future versions.
--
Pieter
🗒️ Summary of this message: John Smith questions the choice of autotools as the future build system and suggests cmake, but Pieter has no preference as long as it meets certain criteria.
📝 Original message:On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 07:29:04AM +0000, John Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why again did we choose for autotools as future build system instead of
> cmake?
I have no preference for any particular project build system. If a system
* is easy enough to set up (included in standard repositories, eg.)
* allows building of the bitcoin codebase on several linux distro's
* does cross-compilation to windows
* supports osx
* is easy to maintain
* it is not too hard to adapt other GUI's to use it (bitcoin-qt,
maybe others as well, i hear about a cocoabitcoin?)
* gets implemented and tested to support all of the above
.. i have no problem with choosing that system for future versions.
--
Pieter