Re: [gpsd-dev] cmake:

[Matt]

At risk of adding fuel to the flames, use of scons is also a problem 
when trying to compile for mingw, as porting scons and all of its 
dependencies to mingw appears to be a mammoth task, from which I'd never 
return to work on gpsd.

In the past I just wrote a Makefile.mingw . It worked fine, it ended up 
being clean and simple, and it was much, much easier than any other way 
I can see to create a mingw executable.

Bernd, why couldn't you just create a Makefile and use it instead of 
scons if you wanted to?

If it's OK to modify upstream source before packaging and distributing 
the resultant binaries, surely it's even more OK to change the build system.
Does your choice of build system have to be the same as upstream's for 
some reason?

Please forgive me if I am ignorant of Debian policy on this matter.

On 15/01/15 01:34, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz <address@hidden>:
> > My problem with scons is that I wasted hours of my life in trying to figure
> > out things in scons that would just work out of the box in a correct way.
> > Or that would have been easy to debug in other build systems by reading
> > a stupid Makefile...
> Pretty much anything other than bare makefiles would have presented
> you with the same "out of the box" problem, though.  Can you honestly
> say the complexity barrier to entry of cmake is any lower than scons
> presents to a new user?  I doubt it...
>
> Separately, I wish I had only wasted hours of my life on autotools
> since 1991.  It has to have run into *weeks* of my life by now.  That
> felt like months.
>
> I'm sorry you had a bad initial experience with scons. Can you identify
> specific design decisions or missing features that give you problems?